ff922 
D14]) 


THE CRITICAL STANDARDS OF HENRY JAMES 


A Study of His Change from the Moral to the Aesthetic 
in Criticism, Together with the Reasons for the Change 


By 


THEODORE WAYLAND DOUGLAS 


A. B. Miami University, 1918 


THESIS 


SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH 
IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS, 1922 


URBANA, ILLINOIS 


A Ne A a So 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 


THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 


; er UA wit ee 


| HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY 


SUPERVISION BY__ Theodore Wayland Douglas 


ENTITLED____ The Critical Standards of Henry James 


BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 


THE DEGREE OF oe LENG 


LE ee 


In Charge of Thesis 


Head of Department 


Recommendation concurred in* 


{ * of 
; 
( y Z 2 ee Committee 
SA aa ae } s =e Eset 
( "e on 


Final Examination* 


*Required for doctor’s degree but not for master’s 


AGGG20% 


be . + o- 
a ay ay US ho 


ri a \ 
TT UAE oe PS Ory a 
uw 
\ ah ; 


Lye ae 
hime 


CONTENTS 


Chapter I Introductory 


Chapter If The School of Morals and the 


Aesthetic School 


Chapter III Henry James as a Moralist 


Chapter IV Phases of Aestheticism 


Chapter V Transition 


Chapter VI Part I:- James's Desertion of 


the School of Morals 


Part II:- James's Aestheticism 68 


Chapter VII Later HKssays 


Bibliography 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2016 


httos://archive.org/details/criticalstandard00doug 


CHAPTER I 


INTRODUCTORY 


"The critic's first duty in the presence of 
an author's collective works is to seek out some key to 
his method, some utterance of his literary convictions, 
some indication of his ruling theory. The amount of 
labor involved in an inquiry of this kind will depend 
very much upon the author. In some cases the critic 
will find expressed declarations; in other cases he will 
have to content himself with conscientious inductions." 

With these words Henry James approaches a 
study of George Eliot, and it is with this method in 
Mind that I approach a study of Henry James. 

It is in the essays more than in the novels 
and short stories that one finds expressed James's basic 
convictions. If one had only the novels and stories 
to judge from, he would have to content himself with 
conscientious inductions, as many of the commentators 
on James have already done, with more or less success. 

Mr. W. C. Brownell gives a large part of his 


essay on James to wondering what James's philosophy is 


7,1) rs 
ee eet dR B65 ee 


! 
q 


a 


ends oe re 


Figg | OL Hine ® fy Now ne - gear 


‘ie ola J 
f DRA hae 
’ 
‘\ 
ery \ ; 
av % 
i 
i f 
> % ! H , 
' 
: of * 
LOO" 
; = 
< 4, 
ny: 
r 1 eee 
i uh } 
q ‘laa a 
- 9 
- a a 
sa 7 
} 
“ ies - o = 
a OM ‘ 
os 
a hy 
ial 
he Vy 
i Vd bd Di, + 
2 
' i 
ere mn bi * 
" iw Vide TV 
‘ 


tt Hy r i 


bP eee eV. ae 
om ian as Pein 
va fi , io 
i ie : : 
: : hn 
iu i 


eB 

and to drawing certain inductions rather from what he 
refrains from saying than from what he says. Mr. 
Brownell says that taste plays a large part in James's 
philosophy, that it is a cultivated indifference based 
upon a subconscious moral fastidiousness; and he com- 
plains that James assumes the universality of his faith 
and therefore does not take the trouble to outline it. 
The first two inductions are affirmed in James's critical 


essays, insofar as they may be taken to be definitions of 


1. Brownell, W. C.: American Prose Masters; N. Y.; 
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909. p- 500. But what this 
philosophy is, it is idle to speculate. Tt is doubt- 
less profound enough, and though one does not argue 
introspection of Mr- James's temperament, ----- unless, 
indeed, his work betray an effore to esacpe it, as the 
nuisance it may easily become, ----- he could doubtless 
sketch it for us if inclined, and very eloquently and 

even elaborately draw out for us its principles and posit 
ions. But he has no interest whatever in doing so--- 
no interest in giving us even a hint of it. One may 
infer that taste plays a large part it it, the taste that 
some philosophers have made the foundation and standard 

of morals,----the taste, perhaps, that prevents him from 
disclosing it. He has the air of assuming its univers- 
ality, as if, indeed, it were a matter of breeding, a 
mere preference for “the best" in life as in art, a sys- 
tem, in a word, whose sanctions are instinctive, and so 
not strongly enough or consciously enough fel$ to call 
for emphasis or exposition. No manifestation or quality 
or incarnation of “the best"evokes his enthusiasm. That 
it "may prevail" is the youngest of his cares. His vhil- 
osophy appears in the penumbra of his performance as a 
cultivated indifference, or at most a subconscious basis 
of moral fastidiousness on which the superstructure that 
monopolizes his interest is erected. 


Tan Ae i: 
i 


a ee 
phases of aestheticism; but the third errs in the democ- 
racy of its viewpoint. It seems to me that, using the 
same data from which Mr. Brownell drew his conclusions, 
one might more surely conclude that James felt that his 
viewpoint was not universally attainable than that it was 
universally acceptable. It was one of those things 
which one has, or one does not have,---like table manners; 
and after a certain age nothing can be done about it. 
Considering this view of it, one is not surprised that the 
hope that it may prevail is, as Mr. Brownell expresses it, 
"the youngest of his cares." Henry James lived to 
outgrow his public; he made no attempt to drag it along 
with him, but rather contemptuously accepted its dining- 
and-wining him, lionizing him, and refraining from read- 
ing eee 

In her book on Henry James, Miss Rebecca West 
refers to the critical essays which appeaswred from time 
to time in The North American Review, The Atlantic 
Monthly, The Nation, and other preiodicals in the sixties 


1. For an exposition of this attitude see James's story 
in the first volume of The Yellow Book, Vol. I. April 
1894. p.- 7. The Death of The Lion. 


} . 
| 
i ny 
ht / : 
= | . Me ‘ mt Lin 
t& L % 
iF | I 
a oy ae 
| a ‘ he 1 
) 
vy rag: 4 
' ’ 
* f a | a 
. ‘ihe t 
; ev A hodsh © 
. 
* ‘ ! y , 7 
- Ww " 
¥ 1 
' di 
fi 
M4 ' 
' . 1, 
ia v ; 
. . 
i") itt @ i 
- i) P . 
. : y 


fou Fie" we r ~ a om ar 
} ave ie fv i hale oa OL Ld SO 9s, ft 


1 am ef ge sh rama, 


i i 
‘ 
‘ 
i ig 
i J 1% 
t I ¥ i) : 
ae sas i 
om nm samellanel aati neat he ema re 


. * | if ,. 4 ; wl tay "EO nokta agqxe vs 
OV wol ley efT to manny £ ‘ov ia 
ae ins ef? 4 

ADD cae) 


{ re 
- piles J [ , ay 
tei aaae 


st Auer 
and seventies as a dress rehearsal, a "necessary preface 
to thé literary life." But this practice, which he kept 
up throughout almost all his literary life, was much more 
than a dress rehearsal. In these essays which Miss West 
dismisses with a light allusion to the stage we find that 
key to his method, that utterance of his literary convic- 
tions which James said is essential to a true understand- 
ing of a writer. I doubt if a better method could be 
found of determining a writer's philosophic basis and 
critical school than following through certain represent- 
ative essays of his criticism of his contemporaries and 
noting passages which display these bases most fully. 

If his views are clearly expressed, the sum total of 
James's ideas about other writers of his own time should 
show exactly where he stands in the literary development 
of that time, and also the standards by which he judged 


his own work and that of his contemporaries. 


1. West, Rebecca: Henry James; London; Nisbet and 
Company, Ltd. 1916. p. 22. He also went through a 
necessary preface of the literary life by reading proofs 
of George Eliot's novels before they appeared in The 
Atlantic and reviewing. The profession of literature 
differs from that of the stage in that the stars begin 
instead of ending as dressers. 


“ ] ‘ 
ee 


als aah rQD to) paws oF 
Ly the Ah 


ry 
tooroa . «= —_ 


a 1 
9 
" 


5 if Fi ‘ > 
4 bal | ‘toss a 
“i i ra va ri 


bitte , em + eas it 


to: 6. 78% te ta ta a 


~ 4 To vOut ator fa. on (1080 


oad wpe 
ty. xe 


ao og Fy 
“a hh WO he th, as 


Sh oe 

The results of this research show that James 
had a definite philosophical and critical theory which 
he followed in his judgment of the literary works of 
the times, and that this basis may be definitely deter- 
mined by a study of his essays. But no man, unless it 
be Carlyle, can remain entirely unchanged by his contacts 
with the world at large; and if he be changing at the 
same time he is writing, the change in point of view will 
be shown in his writings. What Henry James eventually 
became, what he finally represented in American criticism, 
are things well known and universally established. The 
ultimate aestheticism of James has been discussed by 
various writers, and the statements about it range from 
the rather faltering hypotheses of 2, Brownell that 
James's standards were chiefly standards of taste and 
cultivated indifference, and Miss Rebecca West's light 
discussion of James's "fling" in The Yellow Book and the 
influence on him of the decadent aestheticism of cee 


"fin de siecle" movement of the Naughty Nineties, to 


1. West, Rebecca: Henry James; London; Nisbet and 
Comnany, Ltd. 1916. pp. 80-84. 


ee re py Ce ee 


i 
| 


ft 
rf an 
bi sow oats 
d i ea 


ea ay 


) 4 fi oe % + 
A ‘ YW ‘ay Colne emat 
| Pt ath cy 2 
io i, | ; 
. \ a j 
\ 
. » - 
‘ 
‘ 
j 
. i 
ad ¢ ’ 
’ ' " 
; ; 
i] e { 


i { ‘' ’ or 
r a* 
& 
I 
a) f 
ie ; -_ f 
: y 
i) 
\ if «> mr | 
? 
i 
’ e Th ws 
bakery i 
i » 4 
i rr » 


sche iretinleripamenliiataiaahatiearitctia ted tac 
' i ij i 
at ef, 


i 
nol ; gama, Sgnel: poe neh 


ae i) tes ot a 3 or "J 


ay ie 
Mr. Stuart P. Sherman's statement that "he adored beauty 
and absolutely nothing else in the aoe 

If James had been uniformly consistent in his 
point of view, if he had arrived at his final standards 
before he began to write and had held them to the end, a 
study of his critical theory would amount to mothing more 
than pointing out a few characteristic examples and draw- 
ing a general conclusion as to the degree of his aesthet- 
icism. But the problem is by no means as simple as that. 
There is a marked duality in James's critical writings. A 
constant struggle in the critic between a natural aesthet- 
icism and the inculcated principles of Victorian morality 
----what Mr. Spingarn calls "the faded moralism of the 
older types of criticism"----appears in his critical 


reviews, a struggle in which the aesthetic finally gains 


l. Sherman, S. P.:On Contemporary Literature; N. Y.; 
Henry Holt and Company, 1917. esthetic Idealism of 
James". p. 234. The thing which James hoped chiefly 
that his critics would some day recognize is not that 
he was @ great stylist, or a learned historian of man- 
ners, or the chief of the realists, or a master of 
psychological analysis. All these things have been 
noted and asserted by various more or less irreligious 
strollers through that cathedral-like edifice to which 
we have likened his works. The thing which he as 
high priest solemnly ministering before the high altar 
implored someone to observe and to declare and to ex- 
plain is that he adored beauty and absolutely nothing 
else in the world. 


ne nant ¢ 
Pca 


a 10 
+A ay 1 BiB tes E90, 
7 


bees 16¢t 7 Bry 0 


favo? a4 08 


FTO do 


; le : nf 
. ane nal Beran 


Se 
@ complete ascendency. 

When Henry James started his critical writing, 
there was no more perfect Victorian. He stood out 
Quixote-like against the literary world, armed with the 
dignity of his twenty-two summers and a matriculation in 
Harvard Law School, the foe of all literary creations 
which would not fit comfortably into the stuffy company- 
parlor of the Puritan conscience. When his literary 
career closed with his death in 1916, James was the 
Supreme example of pure aestheticism in American letters. 
When the change began, how long it continued, and what 
were the various circumstances outer and inner which 
brought it about, are the matters which I shall attempt 


to determine in this investigation. 


f an digs net hgh 


' 
i i ! i ea f 
fi \ t 
y 
ry 
j “en ) rt % 
= | 
j { . £ | ‘ tt { 
et Ui if 
. ; ae M 
i hit & 
. : a 7 | > 
4 o 7 te 
‘ ’ ) "4 
AA ee gue fe 
¥ wt . 
- 
‘ 
i ¢ y 
5 cn ’ Bie his a! oy 
he La ve : t HeOGs ae 4 
' f / Ti 
oy barefeet 


! af » 
“MOL Sevol Gadd af of 
= L, 


imret o6 ner 


4 


CHAPTER II 
THE SCHOOL OF MORALS AND THE AESTHETIC SCHOOL 


How does literature justify itself? Is the 
object of literature pleasure or profit? These ques- 
tions have been befor the public ever since literature 
came into existence. Differences of opinion on these 
questions are at the bottom of many of the differences 
between the various schools of criticism. 

Plato banished the poet from his ideal repub- 
lic, presumably because the poet did not add anything 
to the general good, because his product was useless. 
Why, then, is the poet, the writer? Is the produc- 
tion of literature a waste of time? If not, what 
good does it do? 

There were two factions in the argument. The 
oldest faction, the one which has carried the classical 
tradition of letters down the ages, is the School of 
Morals, represented first by Plato and Horace, and then, 

in English literature, by Sir Philip Sidney, Ben Jon- 
son, John Milton, Alexander Pope, Thomas Carlyle, and 
many others. This faction held that literature is 
justified only insofar as it serves as a pleasing method 


of teaching people and inculcating in them higher moral 


. Peeve | ; { Tj q A, i Yo 
f ‘ y r nA Lh c . &ueru sau y hy ony 


a iw | ; ) ’ A* o (a i 

i | iv : . Try > 
. + + ~ ’ ee] ia 
iT ¥) 

( 0 os 


mt a 4% : 4, F / , 4f Pvc b satitod 
=z a | * A - oa 


, 7 ‘ “ one destiis't Por | Le ‘. : 
q.- le st OT Ed taxkt hoe tii 
: f } i rs 
i , I a pl: 
7 on 7 eh? aa oe $0. - i 

q . CGHOiG Giital = Ge ' OLN eTOT, re. ‘fas td 

i i | i 7 4, 
| i . f ; " eo 

i 1, m of (1 > r i re -_ we oe | 
‘7 , Ot 9 samont ,e7o% tebnmeala 9h r24 Em: at i 


i@ : i , Li ) ae | \ ae 


f “ a f 
> ‘ ‘ . 
ie fan met i , 
a , J ‘i gal Vew Dae Wy y' 


i r é 4 * be ud : & = +f az 1 f ‘elno 
| : ee wikteolwort bre diced 7 


2 942 
principles. The other view, that of the Aesthetic 
School, was that literature gives pleasure to the in- 
tellectual human being, and that this fact is a suf- 
ficient justification for its existence. This school 
figured somewhat in the humanistic revival of the Re- 
naissance and in the rationalistic naturalism of the 
latter part of the last century and the first of this, 
but it did not receive complete expression in literary 
criticism until the time of Shaftesbury. 

In 1498 Valle translated Aristotle into 
Italian, thus bringing in the "sugar coated pill" idea, 
the claim that the poet (and in all these discussions 
the word poet was used as a generic term to include 
all writers of literature) was a teacher, and that his 
poetry was merely a means of teaching pleasingly. There 
were further variations of the idea. Aristotle said 
that the poet was a better teacher than the historian 
because the poet relates what might have happened, the 
universal bruth, while the historian has to tell mere 
particulars. In the eighteenth century John Dennis 


developed the same idea from the Poetics as a basis for 


do eel ete ee 
yes a ara 7 
i ae 


stoaditg } 
4 wit? saw a foou foe re 


morte 
th aad 


sisi ee a ae 
JTSivsay bres I ot 


ToIved 8 Ghw vom 8 ° oe 
1 : i 


teil 


‘eth. vite rat tose 
At sine sti ale out at i - etata 


ae ee 

1 
morality in criticism. Girondo Cintio said that 
the poet's chief purpose was to condemn vice and praise 
virtue. In 1558 Minturno said that the poet teaches 
virtue and must be virtuous himself, an idea which, 
when later added to the Puritan ideal of letters, was 
strikingly brought out in Milton's writings and held 
also by Ben Jonson, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. By 
1566 the idea of the poet as a moral teacher had been 
carried over from the Italian into France by Jacques 
Pelletier. 

Philosophical and apologetic criticism of 
literature began in England with Sir Philip Sidney's 
Defense of Poesie in 1683, although this was not pub- 
lisher until 1595, and in the matter of publication 
was preceded by Harrington's Apology for Poetry which 
was published in 1591. Daniel's Defense of Rhyme 
followed shortly after in 1603. These were brought 
forth by Puritan attacks on the stage and attacks of 
classicists on English versification. The part of 
them which has to do with justifying the existence of 
literature follows the Italian models, basing the right 


1. Dennis, John: Grounds of Criticism in Poetry; 1704. 
For if Poetry be more philosophical, and more instructite , 


than History, as Aristotle is pleas'd to affirm of it, 
and no man ever knew the nature of Poetry, or of Histoy , 
or of Philosophy, better than he did, why then that Art, 
or rather that Artifice, with which a great many Writers 
of Verses and Plays debauch and corrupt the people, is a 
thing to which Poetry is directly contrary. 


28 "seq r ut 


as 


4 MJ a be ¢ iv 


Aa te \ * 
erm emo 


iv tw ob 0; aad { 
ee 


<empelen oe smmpre = were 1 tated - 


20 a hy fA 0 ry <0 


ac lita  Or0m © 
t Becinhs tat tA 


bs Sbhagd 
Bd nibe oe o 


4 Ae 
of literature to exist either on its pleasing or its 
instructive qualities. The matter chiefly of inter- 
est to this inquiry is that even as far back as the 
end of the sixteenth century the Puritans were attack- 
ing literature and making its backers account for it 
in terms of the practical good to be gained from read- 
ing it. The answer that the writers made. to the 
Puritans was in every case that literature teaches, 
and that its purpose is to teach. That it pleases 
was considered merely an added advantage in instruct- 
ing by this method. The Puritans were constantly 
attacking immorality in literature. Later in the 
development of the controversy the faction which opposed 
the Puritan demand for instruction in literature develop- 
ed the aesthetic idea of art for art's sake, beauty for 
beauty's sake, which gave them a philosophical basis 
for objecting to the necessity of moral teachings in 
works of art; but this aesthetic opposition to morals 
was not fully developed until the nineteenth century. 

In 1605 Bacon's Advancement of Learning opposed 
the idea of the writer as teacher. He declared in bhe 


second book that the fable had been written first and 


ae et rr 


7} 


aa wae 
” ViLY ‘he 


Dou » anioxvsel to Tome oiev bA pes 
: - rapt teeta obare - = a - nm || he ; 
ous ae de sei 
- a, r a “— | 
ateloeh '¢ - THLOBe BB teri 7 
E. tf ‘ ; ‘ ' 
wa a \ a) 
7 > - 
. . — > gel .| fi 8 


4 aTri TW & 1904 bad ee 


ae 

the moral found afterwards, and that the purpose of 

poetry is to take the mind to an ideal workd. This 
idea was exemplified in many of the writings of the 

Romanticists of the eighteenth and nineteenth cent- 

uries. 

But in Every Man in His Humour Ben Jonson 
exalts the revered name of poet and declares that the 
poet must be a good man in order to write good poetry. 
And so through eveny period of English literature we 
find exponents of both sides of the question, the 
Original, age-old question whether the purpose of lit- 
erature is to please or to instnuct. On the one side 
we find a definite School of Morals testing all liter- 
ature by the lesson it teaches, the good it does; and 
on the other the Aesthetic School claiming that if lit- 
erature gives pleasure it justifies its existence ina 
world which contains all too few pleasures of any sort. 
The difference, then, is fundamental. Other differences 
of opinion and theory on matters other than the origina 
justification of literature differentiate classicists 
from romanticists, humanists from naturalists, and so on, 


but these differentiations are not pertinent to the matter 


1. Bacon, Francis: The Advancement of Learning; Book II: 
The source of poetry is to be found in the dissatisfaction 
of the human mind whth the actual world, and its purpose 
is to satisfy man's longing for a more perfect greatness, 
goodness, and variety than is to be found in the nature of 
things. Reason doth huckle and bow the mind into the 
nature of things. 


rt Ps Re it 
oil tt e o-#iel 
TT 


U 
gh i al 4 

i y 
nt. tne 


i 


, 


‘was ate 
18Vet a o Lose 


io Yroede bes noe CC) 


eyeerec lt 


ipa 


a ee 
iw 4 de a iti 
al " y 
ry aad k 


a nOLv wt FAeTS 


ri 
lawet 


- mos 8; ft of 


easy wod 
; i +" 7 ix rel " 
} > | 


ey 


UB - 

in hand. On the question of the purpose of literature 
there are but two sides, that of the School of Morals 
which claims that literature is to instruct, and that 
of the Aesthetic School which claims that literature is 
justified only insofar as it pleases. 

There is one interesting parallel which I 
should like to point out before I leave the matter of 
history and get back to Henry James, who at different 
times in his life represented each of the two schools, 
moral and aesthetic. 

After the restoration of the Stuart line, in 
the reigns of Charles II and James II, England went 
through a period of reaction against Puritanism, a per- 
iod of hilarious riotousness and vice made beautiful by 
court trappings which: was weakly paralleled at the end 
of the nineteenth century by the aesthetic naturalism 
and moral perversion of the "fin de siecle" school of 
Oscar Wilde, et al. The fundamental ideas of the 
two movements seem to be much the same. There was the 
same feeling of irresponsibility, the feeling that the 
whole movement was the end of a cycle, the mad rush 
after enjoyments that might at any moment be snatched 


away. The Cavaliers of the courts of Charles and James 


ret 


Ste 4 j 


ran taoe 84 . 


hea 


ey 
J 


7 Oey i 
o Atnoetonta é od 
Bae). a 
lervevieqg fs TO 


ed oy 
fa te a“ ve 


ov me oa a atone 


i 


on 24 a a . 
hs ae 


a al 7 a P " | 
+” Leo 44 Yo ai o ost {Ff + oom tnoaeve mW 4 ale ~ 
Las tus a ir 
yr i ea ela Py anid 7 ee if i 7 
(18 %e@ tdato yg i 2 ee 5 +m : 
Px hes es 
é } we at zi 
SP TsI00 odt ty. aro! wee ao. a : ; 
; WP at a ‘ae aa 1 ett ’ zm ai 
pt ei i oe 9 


Va eae 


ee a. 
7 _ 


at Wd 


had a double motive for their excesses; they felt the 
position of the royal house which countenanced their 
debauches to be not the most firm, and they were making 
up for lost time, extracting from the present penance 
for the wasted years of pleasureless Puritanism. 

The playhouses, which had been closed throughout 
the Cromwell regime, were opened to plays more openly 
immoral, more shockingly lascivious than any of their 
modern brothers, the nearly-censored Broadway bedroom 
farces. Certain of the wiser of the court writers 
foresaw the inevitable results of the carnival of immoral- 
ity and sought to cast an occasional sop to the still 
numerous Puritans by references to the instructive value 
of their plays. Richard Congreve gives the best single 
example of the two-faced nature of the morality cant in 
The Way of The World. He points out in the preface that 
he shows vice with the hope that the persons seeing it on 
the stage will learn to shun it; and he addsesses his 
fedication to Madam Bennet, the keeper of a notorious 
brothel, with the suggestion that she become a patron 
of the arts. 


The natural reaction from this sort of thing 


- it Rs 
trom efdn a be 
ri DOM elduoh @f 
ie 
a 


0 nott bar 
«: 7 _ 


A a Pr J 
yor edd % 
Pa | 


ha 


: ton od oh ee 


——— r Po 
Fl aa) OF 


= 


Lise edd .,.eter tome i 1x@ Dy 


1" ' i 
By Uy 4 | 
eae’ lai ft aat sda: BE 10% * ot J 


~ : 


Ato ot? 3 
va it 


f etd do tw ‘90k v: 
tk cust 
ect id , Fonae a a, or 


fon 


an Sarena 


= Teo 
was a Puritanical outburst against literature by Jeremy 
SEE ai He attacked the stage, playwrights, and the 
whole art of writing. Then it was again up to the = 
writers to justify the existence of literature. Dryden 
admitted that he had gone astray, and said that he would 
write clean literature from that time on. Others took 
up the defense of literature in general. The reaction 
was what was to be expected, the Aesthetic School defying 
Collier and refusing to make sermons out of plays, the 
School of Morals differentiation between the abuse of 
the literary art in the immoral plays and the right 
use, that of teaching moral lessons. 

There followed en increase in the strength 
of the School of Morals. It grew in the reign of 
William and Mary; it fed upon the work of the numerous 
societies for the improvement of manners and morals, 
one of which was led by Queen Anne; and by that token 
of royal favor it took on a tone of nationalism which 
made it appear to represent the royal and aristocratic 
taste in literature. It became particularly active 
in the period of the Tory reaction of Wordsworth, South- 


ey, and Tennyson; and it so characterized much of the 


1. Collier, Jeremy: A Short View of the Profaneness and 
Immorality of the Stage. 1698. 


| (ad¢ boe ,etdgiuwyalq ,apete edd hexoarte oH 


mm & yew ~~ eae © Toe 7\ a be P a) mn ste 5 petal : 
Z ; : < Abbe Ja om ioe ek ere 7 


we ie 


smote yd eautarerit tanlona retwdtse Iso | 
ust 

= odv of qu otaye oaw 32 sae ae -gakttaw XM 
nebytl .eivtstedis Yo oonotatxe edt ba. ot 
Binow off sadd bisa igs ‘ eoehen ena bax edt . | 


a 


too avedro 0 emld duet? mor’ vageneee’s 


nofevoaer eAT Lesoney ree ointaredhy to. 


a 3 r 


niytebh Lootol olterttae, edd fate od oF + eam 8 
odd ,agalq Lo tuo anowres exam OW gateuter: : 
ho eenda edt neowted aotteltoovettib g | 
Sigit ed? Sas eval, Latommi odd nt aa tered: 
-anduael Sercom _padtiones x6 a ra 
dtanexte edt of eeaeTOn!t 48 pots 

to mater edt at 7078 +3 ®t or Mt 
avoremen edt to arow ent noqu het t2 “pea 
olerom bas etennsm ‘to snomevorNgat edt bad | 
nedot tadt ud bas 7 onus heenp we bot ean hs m, | 
foldw mat Lano ting: to snot 2 a0. Hoo th mt t La 
obtevoseltn bae toyor mdi ts | 
evitos yltalvol tag omnoed ca 
-dtvee vows h Tow to mottos: eet 


Tad) eit 
edt to doom bos ixetoauase ae 


em 


Aa “+t i 
nae Yt ey 


= ie 


critical and creative writing of the Victorian period 
that the term Victorian when applied to literature has 
become synonymous with moralism. The aesthetic 
reaction of the Naughty Nineties came naturally after 
such a period just as the mad cycle of Charles II and 
James II followed after the rigid restraints of the 
narrow Puritanism of the Commonwealth. 

The basic principle of the School of Morals 
is aptly epitomized in the second published work from 
the pen of Henry James, published in the North American 
Review in January 1865, a critical review of Harriet 
Elizabeth Prescott's Azarian, An Episode. 

"®here is surely no principle of fictitious 
composition so true as this,---that an author's paramount 
charge is the cure of souls, to the subjection, and if 
need be to the exclusion of the picturesaue.” 

Upon this rule may be based all the criticism 


of the School of Morals from the time of Aristotle to 


the present. 


= A 


bo brag nel to toa oae Io galticw. evitsexo J 
i Bari exrstewsis o¢ betiqgs medw nero LV a 

oltvenises af? vine £ Let0m athe exit | 
tetts yliaswitsn sans avttonti widgoat 7 
{ } be LF eeftads to sfogo: dem oft as tent. B 
eft to ett atten bigizt ont 16F%e sowoce 


y" 


Nt{seyromm9d end to 8b 


Fi v 


alerom ‘to Loodse et to elgtonsay otand me 
Serevent pee, eee 
mort Mrow hedetidug haooss oats nt denim te 
apoiremA Atco edt at hodalidy cemat 
* On ed? s if a cone 


teluteH to weivex folding a ‘808L % rant 8 A } 


Bhogladl BA pekoah a! 200 a 
Sgoltitolt? to efqtonieg on Tiexue ot ell 


. ¥ <i p 7 
tasomatag a’ rocdton fa tadtt ~~~  etee ps adsl ; al | 


t) Dna sMOLtook dua adi of ,aluog to omy Bs, ak : = 
' ry , ~~ ; : 
"  ssorotmtot ont to Hobes Lore pte 
t 

mgiotéine edt {La Seanad. od: act ofa bal 


of elvotelitA to ola et wir 


CHAPTER III 
HENRY JAMES AS A MORALIST 


In plunging into the juvenilia of a great 
author and bringing forth to the cold gaze of a crit- 
ical eye the absurdities, the crudities, the incon- 
sistencies which might otherwise have lain decently 
buried beneath the monumental pile of excellent later 
productions of the author, one is tempted to clear 
oneself once for all of the charge of muckraking by 
doing as Mr. Ford Madox Hueffer did in his study of 
the same author---to state at the beginning in clear 
terms that he considers the author the greatest writer 
of the century, and then to go about his fault-finding 
with a clear Bey al If it were not for the fact 
that Henry James's connection with the School of Morals 
is best shown in his earliest writings when he was a 
moralist and nothing else, if it were not that the change 


in him from moralist to aesthete takes place soon after 


1. Hueffer, Ford Madox: Henry James; N.Y.; Dodd, Mead, 
and Company, 1916. "Introduction" p. 9. Let me say at 
once that I regard the works of Mr. Henry James as 
those most worthy of attention by the critics,---that 
Mr. James is the greatest of living writers, and in 
consequence, for me, the greatest of living men. 


260 oa } 


f inane ” 
4 Roa AF 
f 


it boa an res 


\ ml m 


‘ eonet SAROD 


ig 


ul Oita eno at es 
ei) 4 Lh 


| a , a oa 
vw Toenem 36 aia “at aw ita 


bm 


‘dace of te toe orth al 
Bale: i .. oe 
co haa ae = - 


1 
iu 


ig 
3 an98H izoba M Srxo 


a i: 
BaBo" dip ane 


a ae ee 


aay! Hue ee 

he first breaks into print with his critical reviews, 

I should leave the preliminary essays untouched and 

go at once th that point where one could best observe 
the change in critical standards from the moral to the 
aesthetic. If James had really followed the entirely 
uneventful course which is ascribed to him by certain 
of his ROR NRS Hee o would probably have remained a 
moralist for a much longer time than he did. But as 
the change in his critical standards appears within a 
year from the time when James's articles began appear- 
ing in periodicals, I shall consider them from the very 
first in the order of their appearance, until the change 
to the aesthetic is unmistakable. 

Anyone who has not experienced that exquisite, 
delicious, almost wicked thrill of exaltation upon receiv- 
ing for the first time money, real money, for certain 
literary productions later to appear in print will wonder 
im the space Henry James gave in Notes of a Son and Brother 
1. Miss Rebecca West particularly. She seems to think of 
James as a most clam-like sort of person, uninfluenced by 
anything which went on around him. Her strange idea is 
based on the fact that his injury kept him from doing 
anything, but she overlooks the fact that a person who is 
continually observing has his powers of observation so 


sharpened that he is influenced by things around him more 
than is the busy man who is continually doing things. 


Pos iv, ., i, v aia anos pic ’ 7 


; 
a 
i 
} \ , eo 
Sa ble «,. i 
> 
r - os 
a 
tt y Vv sea Jd tee 


ia =e 


7 ; AS aA ; ' Sengol fous ays 
j 
1 [ it? care - | fsotdlto | 


( 
ee ; 
7 
; fi 
' “ , 
o : - , } Ts &. 9 y abt IN 
1 é at 
1 F as 7 
c ° 5 ; fan I ¢ 
'. ; + Li / + oo fi{z = . oO 
: ' : ; 
/ 
. , ms 
J } ; ; Li Wid » 2 . ob 
' 
i 
' sissalnmiag st 
fg 
4 | 
. : » ae elas 
: fe v ( “oeqxe gon Bas OAW 
s + oe 
a : : 
| . bi : e * all +b mi { af ny , 
-7i] E J | °8 a! | a ie % VV her GP: &é Ww teow . ‘s 7 e y 


ft nt 8eoO * a: f | laet , [eRron eriz ¢@ at oti 


a ohnow {fiw dnl: segan of total sao itoubona 


s4 4 
8S ORs 


Soe 
D St evay souet guiel eo 
4 ae eet pe a Ne 2 : ms 


a 2 i - . -_ a ~ - — = a Tre ave os 
we. r ; 32en oz Ylrsiue ivtaq tae beech 
Pr Tsing monte ro 7108 prop mine l® ae 
4 4 ‘4 oO as 
iwtes Lel mid Soot new . 


noyt mid ¢qedt qrotmb sia ted tot af 
soak ; tat? goat eat a too Lsewo ede tad 
tiaviesd ate WO ois a af a eget 

{8 wi tt eK peonoaftal ol. at rads 


: .! 


* ror r 
b. f a Fa! 
o ta; ~ a 4 Ons ia MM LLweat? 


=, ON = 
to his recollections of his first essay; and a further 
consideration of the literary quality of this product 


may tend to cast some doubt upon the competence so 


highly praised by James of Charles Eliot Norton, the 
i 
editor who bought and printed the essay. There is 


practically nothing in the first critical review to which 


1. James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother; N. Y.; Charles 
Seribner's Sons, 1914. pp. 404-405. I see before me, in 
the rich; the many colored light of my room that pverhung 
dear old Ashburton Place from our third floor, the very 
greenbacks, to the total value of twelve dollars, into 
which I had changed the cheque representing my first earned 
wage. I had earned it, I couldn't but feel, with 
fabulous felicity, a circumstance so strangely mixed with 
the fact that literary composition of a high order had, 

at that very table where the greenbacks were spread out, 
quite viciously declined, and with the air of its being 
once for ally to "come" on any save its own essential 
terms, which it seemed to distinguish in the most invidious 
manner conceivable from mine. It was to insist in 411 
my course on this distinction, and sordid gain thereby 
never again to seem so easy as in that prime handling of 
my fee. Other guerdons, of the same queer, the same often 
rather greasy complexion followed; for what I had done, to 
the accompaniment of a thrill the most ineffable, an agit- 
ation that, as I recapture it, affects me as never exceeded 
in all my life for fineness, but go one beautiful morning 
out to Shady Hill at Cambridge and there drink to the lees 
the offered cup of editorial sweetness?---none ever again 
to be more deliciously mixed. I had addressed in trembling 
hope my first fond effort at literary criticism to Charles 
Eliot Norton, who had lately, and with the highest, bright 
est competence, come to the rescue of the North American 
Review, submerged in a stale tradition and gasping for 
life, and he had not only published it in his very next 
number----the interval for me of breathless brevity---but 
he had expressed the liveliest further hospitality, the 
gege of which was thus at once his welcome to me at home. 


Ag I Gc @dg5ob emos 


1 ‘ 
wy 
if ; 
avr ° \ 
; 4 - wVOva fd ANA 
'. 
fa 
c 
‘ee “ Te r ek wae 
] © >” é ~ t * 
\ 

, 

z 4 R ? i. . Th . Se soto rw 

. SO0n50 ae 2 eson Gt 


> 
2 + 
* . t aS 


| 

ag : 4 

q {revQ #2 tdall Sexoloe one fs) 
. » at t soslt nogandds 
. oT! 7 Le > elev faseoy edd oF 8 


LIieee Si SHveno oAF Ht & mado hes 
: “Rer ; s ie - 
s C ij wa j v a | ‘ igang ‘bad ’ ou 
of > ~~ 
IONSaTSMHIOTIO 4 ‘3 tiorles t oi OLS a. 
= e ‘ ,? J 


' ; ~anlia mort? oldavieon 
| O84 bas ,oolfomitals aids nO 


” : . . ee ‘Ee TT os ihe oa og aia 
ae > iD fe at t ef s hae , anos ce oy 5 2% t0hI0 
r ; , on | venw tol ;bewollot molizxelf canoh yeseay 


tins old: raom eft find? op to" Treat nage rs 
7 aFil-2-F aes | By em @7D¢ tts = @ « ewte BOOT a. an te } 


soc ano Of tnd ,agensalt tot Py 
x eel odd of Anith ered? das .o: bitdaad $a [iti 
ABBR S oHos--~-Tesensoows Laizotibe to quo BeTetie 
ent "? oi beseethbe Sad I bexim ¥ lavololfeb Om. Od 


7 
‘ 
. 
J 


: oltizo yrBrestil ta tuotte bxot tatit yo e 


—~ . 4 - ; 2in ai z a4 iw O73) ' risvalr bad odw acces 

; ri * ' av 102. SF Oo ou oat i ang oy oii 9° 100. 

; anigeog has nolvtbart spcyieh-£# & ot begtes 
‘ Lik | : wi } 0 is Le ou cen cs fo Tot bad hoe 

--~¢tiverd e{dteaetd Do’ em 105” favretot oxi 
‘Y ,ytilstiqeod xendtavt teed) Levit edt a 
.omod ta ox enoolew ace: eone ta sent 
i" - gl) 


ld Shon eo 


oe _— on as va ant <= yo 


OO 
one may point as an indication of the underlying force 
which was to develop into a style of terse comment, keen 
analysis, and biting humor. The essay begins and ends 
off the subject. In the beginning the reader is called 
upon to marvel at the great amount of fiction which an 
apparently busy man can read, and at the end he is hope- 
lessly mixed up in Henry James's own ideas about the value 
of Sir Walter Scott's fiction. The only relevant remark 
which might be classed as criticism is the question as to 
Mr. Senior's justification for including in his book an 
essay on the work of one of his relatives. 

In his second essay we find the first example 
of the richly suggestive figures of speech which so thick- 
ly stud the pattern of James's critical essays, scintillat 
throughout his works, and mark the unsigned reviews as 
indubitable products of James's pen. I have already 
quoted his remark: that the paramount charge of a writer 
is the cure of souls. He enlarges the idea in an 
attack on the use of artificial imagery. 

"But her primary intention completely disappears 


1. Unsigned review of Nessau W. Senior's Essays on Fiction. 
North American Review, October 1865. 


as 7 GS a 

entot aie aaa any To molvaclhal os aa. 

noon (thamnos betes fo akgsa 3 ig qofev 

sine bnew aalyed yaspe sie ‘road antes 
be{{so ef rehaex oft gntaiged on? at 

as dobdw Hobzort Be tions Seow Odd ; 

~sgon 3! sf hon oft te Sus , bast peo inam y 


« . 


sutov od? tuoda aseh! nwo a'aewsl tine at w 6 
tranet touveles tino ed? spobtelt ed D0 ~~? 
ot 94 nod TReup edt at msiolticce da ne 38 9 a bs 
os dood aid af, galbsfont xvod roztag tives, 9 
Govirslet ett To ea to sco 4 
ofqesxe Jatt? eft iol? ow genes baboew wit 2 
~told? oa doidw doseqe To neragee ov tase ot 
feliliatos ,syasee Leottine a egmab to. . 
88 swelvet bematem sit ws bag ot 
yhaesie sve I eq Bic +) to. + wie, ar 
tetiiw a to eptede tademetbg aac nen 
ns ot sebt edt soptalne of -aiu08 20: # 
“Yregout falortiem 20 i 
“Tee eletotunes means 


I 


PA SS EINE eM ama 


=) OF = 

beneath the thick impasto of words and images. Such 

is the fate of all her creations: either they are still- 
born, or they survive but a few pages; she smothers them 
with caresses." 

Mr. Ford Madox Hueffer quotes a sentence from 
James's essay on Baudelaire which claims that it is non- 
sense for a poet to be a realist, and Mr. Ezra Found 
agrees with Hueffer in the conclusion that such a state- 
ment from such a source is enough to make one despair of 
human gorees In this essay on Miss Presoott's Azarian 
there is a similar remark. 

"We would gladly see the vulgar realism which 
governs the average imagination leavened with a little 
old-fashioned idealisn." 

I doubt if Mr. Hueffer and Mr. Pound are right 
in their assumption that James was an utter realist. This 
is one of the things in which James did not make appreciable 


chenge in his progress from moralism to aestheticism. True, 


1. Vide: Pound, Ezra: Instigations; N. Y.; Boni and Live- 
right, 1920. Ch.II “Henry James." p. 124. "For a poet to 
be a realist is of course nonsense," and, as Huefffer says, 
such a sentence from such a source is enough to make one 
despair of human nature. 


{ 
4 . 
i 
3 
4 


F 


Au 


VU 


. 
Pe 
a * . 
>f 
. of 
—— 
‘ sd 


ai soso 4 douse gi0% nt sone 


~* eo » havens 
{ . 8B vil Sv 4 yuse 


r ° "M4 eer A 
HLOBOD ont nt as revi a 
yone at tm4W08 2 do 

\ & 
xs 
i 
4 SHS sii’ i 
+ 6 


wae a a a? 
. >) ch) he ae , Sas @ the G 


bat oe 
i: 
i 6 - toe — ea ae: vd 
» - avHime Mle. & ye 2D 
De 
” z 
f 
os 4 
4 ° o ay 
4 ' 
4 Loe ov 27% £4 


= T ware 
semsl Noldw ni ex 
\maifLaxom mort e# 
a 


I :asoistant tant sexed bncot H 


—G “.B6MSy Caen” ps KO 08 
" Ssaneanor 8B TRO 2 to ‘el. th 


bh 2157 


in the end he was by no means a representative of that 


moral idealism which Messrs. Hueffer and Pound seem to 
consider the only idealism; but he substituted an 
aesthetic idealism which should not be confused with 
realism. 


In this essay on Azarian, however, the moral- 


ity of the idealism shown would suit both Hueffer and 


Pound. "This bad habit of Miss Prescott's is more than 


an offense against art. Nature herself resents it. It 
is an injustice to men and women to assume that the 


fleshly element carries such weight." 


The third essay, a review of T. Adolphus 
Trollope’s Lindisfarn gisele obi with Homeric discon- 
tent upon "these degenerate days" because so many novels 
of the present do not contain weighty morals. 
"The only definite character we are able to 
assign to the book is that of an argument against educat- 


ing English youth in Paris. A paltry aim, the reader may 


say, for a work of these dimensions. He will say truly: 


a a RS SR ER PE REE A EE A AES SARE 2 SR RR SR RSE SE SSD 


1. Unsigned review of T. Adolphus Trollope's Lindisfarn 
Chase, a Novel; The North American Review, January, 1865. 


J] > ] . ‘ & “oa az t * * ‘> ' 7 
~trimte O78 selrting toene 8 
19> 


4 £ + , ‘ 
’ a“ “Ae . *anu {> 
ra d a 7 Be3 § Dt! ar 
j - 
+ ann ¢ : 
. : * ee) rt i) - t 
— 
al 


% 
7 
- 
j 
: —) > a + * oe 
ie ae, i ; L. BW ALSVELO0OG You 4a g 78 
ia 
1 . Sn 5 & 
‘ -) ovoe ; OFLNI LOD 
‘ 
. ‘ - > 6 ae q Ba 
q ui é um a : Sais §&. 
t 


ae 4/ 


yl a iitw eff ‘aso lshemlS! esed 


me DS = 
but from such topics as this is the English fiction of 


the present day glad to draw its inspiration." 


The January 1865 issue of The North American 
Review is enriched by three critical essays by Henry 
James, and the frio is most uncompromisingly moral. [I 
have mentioned two. The third, a review of Mrs. A. M. 
C. Seemuller's Emily Chester is particularly interesting 
in that it gives the moralistic handling of the latter 
nineteenth century theory of instincts. James is 


irate, bitter, scornful. He minimizes the strength of 


the naturalistic philosophy, and says that the absurdity 


of the theory nullifies its pernicious tendencies. 

"The author makes the action of her story rest, 
not only exclusively, but what is more to the point avow- 
edly upon the temperament, nature, constitution, instincts, 
of her characters; upon their physical rather than upon 
their moral sense. It is an attempt to exalt the physical 
sensibilities into the place of monitors and directors, or 
at any rate to endow them with supreme force and subtlety. 
-~--It is very common nowadays for young novelists to 
build up figures minus the soul. There are two ways of 


eliminating the spiritual principle. One is by effect- 


Late! the 


ie =] Hes 


(o 


: 
. otgod douse 


I S ’ ' . . fs epee ‘al . 
I xa ' ‘ a Ss (a5 tA -- 4 
a 


iL A \ Mince OE 
q a: 1g o exsel doei + T20 nat ail 
/ | ‘ 


a . ~~ 
: > 4 wt bed dm J 4 I 
. 
x i” ’ ’ . 
. . . . . ' ~ Siu ——— 8a ,% 
a) 
a fo . cr 
: . . rs 
s P Aa al ‘ren 
i io — a7 
4 
. » , i- « 
- 4 oe ade Vite 
Wo 
q , n 
, Uw vila - i! \s ‘v- ind 
3 & 
if 
a } , — 
r d ror 
¥ g ny F THITOSS 
P 
: oe ' 
, ’ . Ps 
! »% 2A ind g 
‘* 


} . j . r4 if fy it J Hett & a ii ian vroeHd 


roddus , od hh 


pe ae 
ually diluting it in the description of outward objects 
---another is by diluting it in the description of inter- 
nal objects. In either case the temperament is the 
nearest approach we have for the soul. 

"There is hardly a page in which the author does 
not insinuate her conviction that, in proportion as a person 
is finely organized, in so far is he apt to be the slave 
of his instincts---the subject of unaccountable attractims 
and repulsions, loathings and yearnings. We do not wish 
to use harsh words; perhaps, indeed, the word which is in 
Our mind is in these latter days no longer a harsh word. 

But if the author of Emily Chester is immoral, it is in 
making her irresponsible. But the absurdity of such a 


view of human nature nullifies its pernicious tendencies. 


Beasts and idiots act from their instincts; educated men 


and women, even when they most wiolate principle, act 
from their reason, however perverted, and their affections, 
‘however misplaced." 

One can almost see in the contrast between these 
three essays and the first abortive attempt the stabilizing 
influence of James's feeling that he was attached to the 


staff of Bhe North American Keview, not a free-lance trying 


oy | 
es ie Vee 


mL 72 yaelvslin xg edges 
\ © 
; s “ «& Bim a 
M [oO tenis at 
> a» ¥ r 
. . =O a 4 { t7 a 
L 2 : tsa al 


* ix, es , 
zi 3 . ti V2e0 2b 
~ he 
. sa ae i 
P ay a- +8 
on 
. > ‘ &¢) at = 
F 
7 P r . 
. : 4 - » 2 ' 


- . 
ol a! x tly ina ee 
Ke y - a ein tagni > TOMY aa 
c ; ' 


SIG «OL signog sort a 


3 OLULi fis agg Ba saw 
bs my 

ae Fad ine) #ne-s ie sae ail ‘ 

14 349009 MOTT Vos etorhi Baa @¢ c 


» 
_ 
taloi¥ taom yoxt sede eve ft now 
y ak ag 7 
Lerrevreg tevewod Petal édd tor 
; . Lo 


vs Saeesit 


oo odd at eee faumls acta 


vittoda farkt ate 


ae 


a —_ 


‘ ru 
; ain it Gere is 


{ tad+ 
- vany @fasn 4 SES 
: ’ 


ae Db x 
to gain acceptance for unrequested manuscript. It is 
Significant that immediately after his interview with 
Charles Eliot Norton which resulted in his position he 
Should publish three reviews in one issue, all calculated 
to raise the tone of that magazine from the stale tradit- 
ion in which James said it was "gasping for life." 

After this January issue James stayed out of 
print until the American edition of Matthew Arnold's 
Essays in Criticism was published. Then in the. July 
issue of Bhe North American Review he reviewed these 
essays. James was considerably influenced by Matthew 
Arnold's essays, although he remarked conservatively that 
Arnold had a reputation for"a charming style, a great 
deal of excellent feeling, and an almost equal amount 
of questionable reasoning." He hiked particularly 
the idea that criticism deals with fundamental truths 
and leaves their application to the reader. 

"It is the function of criticism to urge the 


claims of all things to be understood. Qur national 


genius inclines yearly more and more to resolve itself 


into a vast machine for sifting, in 411 things, the 
wheat from the chaff. American society is so shrewd, 


that we may safely allow it to make its own application 


of @<: we 
: Poser 

festa G1 Ue 
pre cape 


=o is 


ne § j 
( somal 


: Gi Te ad ATi 
: aes JEM oz ah Sl DLOg 
i 


%. 


st toot feoxe! 


: Se ‘eo 
3 itnoase tx eld 


BG) es 
of the truths of the study. Only let us keep it supr 
plied with the truths of the sthdy, and not with the 
half-truths of the forum. Let criticism take the stream 
of truth at its source, and then practice can take it 
half-way down. When criticism takes it half-way down, 
practice will come poorly off." 


In the same issue of The North American Review 


James reviews Louisa M. Alcott's Moods, He complains 


that the book does not have a moral, and that the author 
does not understand human nature. "This story (of 
husband, wife, and lover) has been told so often that 
an author's only pretext for telling it again is his con- 
sciousness of ability to make it either more entertaining 
or more instructive; to invest it with incidents more 
dramatic, or with a more pointed moral. Her book,is, 
to our perception, innocent of any doctrine whatever. 
The two most striking facts with regard to Moods are the 
author's ignorance of human nature, and her self-confi- 
dence in spite of this ignorance." 

It is worthy of note that in this criticism 


James toys with the aesthetic idea that literature may 


a > ‘ 
SS Ork 


oy jevisourwand og 
+ ea) | 


stom 32 doiw 10 ,obte Le 
& me 


nasuid to 


ae 

be justified by its ability to entertain; but he leans 
very strongly to the moral side. He differentiates, 
too, between the author and her book by remarking that 
in spite of the fact that the hook has no moral Miss 
Alcott "sympathises throughout her book with none but 
great things." 


In The Noble School of atlas "Aabatsne’ in 
the first issue of the New York Nation, James gives his 
view of muscular morality, sanitary sanctity, the Kings- 
ley brothers, and Christian Socialism in general. Several 
of his remarks merit repetition, especially the last of 
the list, which shows that James demanded truth in every- 
thing which he called beautiful. 

"Mr. Henry Kingsley may be described as a reduced 
copy of his brother.---In him we see the famous muscular 
system of morality presented in its simplest form, dis- 
engaged from the factitious graces of scholarship,---- 

In the muscular faith there is very little that is divine, 
because there is very little that is spiritual. ---- 
There is, nevertheless, in his novels, and in his brother's 


1. Unsigned review of Henry Kingsjey's novels; The Nation, 
July 6, 1865. 


tos ef? 


: : iT : ‘ on : 2¢ tT 
. is hoatittr 


i ~ a . 1% 
; ; RAS Be 
a 
7 
” P 
Mu : 3 ae 
nf MOLT ae ee AP 
} 
, 
. 
| , $ oi ' »vtifetomu 
. me 
Oe melds fut! 
is | 
s 
i 
7 > * , 
‘Tt ad . / viv ~ 4 be St 
- ys - -. 
a >» vant WOOE 
R 
« 
of va 
» 
. 4 > ee 5 | he FP 
’ - i rn iW ro" 7 
7: . » MME A oe | 
4 
— he ~~ 
i . e st Rawe = «TOs 
“ . mi ba, 
, ni pevneseexq ¥ 
De . A 
xe ee 
Cay c a 
. og i090 @ (pols igfost 


e . & ® { , a } : + 
, 2! cg pevil ytey @f evens det 8. 1sLeosum ; oe 
x4 ts 


' - 


: owe «heort: ; Bf Fads went ee : spate 


Pe ee 
as well, a great deal which we might call beautiful, if 
it were not that this word always suggests something that 
is true; a great deal which we must, therefore, be con- 
tent to call pretty.” 

In the last sentence of the above quotation we 


see that James is still the complete moralist, that he 


will not recognize beauty apart from truth, and that he 
considers truth separate from and above that which the 
aesthete would call the abstract beautiful. In the 
next issue of fhe Nation James repeats the idea, and 
Opposes the tendency of realism with the statement that 
fiction should not detract from the glory of human nature. 
"We do not expect from writers of Mr. Trollopets 
school (and this we esteem already a great concession) 
that they shall contribute to the glory of human nature; 


but we may at least exact that they do not detract from it." 


2 
The Sch8nberg-Cotta Family gives a new twist to 


the claim that books which are written with a particular 
1. Unsigned review of Anthony Trollope's Miss Mackenzie; 
The Nation, July 13, 1865. 


2. Unsigned review of Sunday School fiction. The Nation, 
September 14, 1865. 


{ +. : ry 
| , i fot 4 : 61g & ttrew 
, x, | Wy 
4 : 7 ar. i 
o m . > Z —- 
7 ' ew doidw lech. tac%gs [eaue 
x, ; ewig ; 
7 
a as i. f tee . a 
‘Viterg Iles o 
; 7 > di id 


a 

gy ‘ . op lad KR ob 

2 . S¢) w 

H 

; 

4 . ‘ ? Tiga at 
» 

” ux Tx! Soaed esi 
" 

i ’ ofatacea z 


- > rT i ae. | 
i ' 7 ; J 3M d 
j > REY SORES 
: é 

Pr . 
q Q . q * rapetad 
; ‘ A - e'8 244k 
a 
i * ¥ - eo } ’ afl 
i 
1 dosuxe at 


ka 
] 4 G2teneo . i: 
f 
le 
; > . ‘ore ~ r 
/ ) 4 a 2 O¢ xt V#eBOn 
a » 
a 
4 
‘ 
a. ‘ j eV hyn ered chs 
' > 2S AS .2em Ca ilu 
, 
| : ‘ 
' ih wil Holaw gaood g 
‘ 
7 ’ 
7 = = —e " tr a 8 eR rene eA 
} Y 4 4 > aan 7 
ay ™ ren 
! ¢ ’ ynontnsé,. to. welvert. De. 
—< pats 


288! yet vist okay 


£JOiz J SOM OE ¢ ebm aie) j to ‘wel iv 


; | 7 | y oe - 808 c 
est | soit aed 


por he 1 eat 
“" ae 


ns 


7 


Liat j 


= 29) x 
moral in mind are not good fiction. James becomes even 
more moral than the defenders of Sunday School fiction. 

"These books of Sunday reading---frequently 
contain, as in the present case, an infusion of religious 
and historical information, and thay in all cases embody 
a moral lesson. This latter fact has been held to render 
them incompetent as novels; and, doubtless, after all, 
it does, for of a genuine novel the meaning and lesson 
are infinite; and here they are carefully narrowed down 
to a special precept." 

Passing over the next two i wal le add 
nothing to our inquiry into James's moralism or aesthet- 
icism, we come to a criticism of Edmond Scherer's works. 
James preferged Edmond Scherer to Sainte-Beuve because 
of his positive morality. 

"We find, and this is the highest praise, it 
seems to us, that we can give a critic, none but: a moral 
unity: that is, the author is a liberal. 


"It is from this moral sense, and, we may add, 


1. Unsigned review of Anthony Trollope's Can You Forgive 
Her? The Nation, Sevtember 28, 1865; and an unsigned 
review of Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney's The Gayworthys, a 
Story of Threads and Thrums; The Nor American Review, 
October 1865. 


] : ey 

is ’ 

: 
if 

i] : 
i, | 

, 7 : 7 e 

i 

| 


oe 
- _ 
- 
3 
—_— 
_- LAal 
‘ 
. 
+ - 
; f 
4 vs 
_~ 
7 


stom slat 


; aie ae ia 


~64%90& Snomaag 


) . t > i "a6 om wis poy R 
‘ m " q aee 
a 


4 , 
o fn * mar > - wr 7 
. SBétiv HOS , fit tT. \ , 7 
; : 7 
’ ‘ ; 
m — a i 
~ - bide ow wv Ag eas 
‘ 


ra < 2 af « — 
rontua edd ,& 


LT Le cag 


: 
: 


i 
to. we 
¥ We 


4 
an 
as _ 18 dims Fer oom . 


iret 
S yaottal 
ai 2 


hed a 
LAW a 


= ga = 

from their religious convictions, that writers like 
Scherer derive that steadfast and delicate spiritual 
force which animates, coBrdinates, and harmonizes the 
mass of brief opinions, of undeveloped assertions, of 
conjectures, of fancies, of sentiments, which are the 
substance of this work. 

"We ppefer M. Scherer to M. Sainte-Beuve 
because his morality is positive without being obtru- 
Sive; and because, besides the distinction of beauty 
and ugliness, the aesthetic @istinction of right and 
wrong, there constantly occurs in his pages the moral 
distinction betweem good and evil; because, in short, 
we salute in this fact that wisdom which, after having 
made the journey round the whole sphere of knowledge, 
returns at last with a melancholy joy to morality.--- 
We can pay no higher tribute to his critical worth 
thah by adding that he has found means to unite the 
keenest logival penetration and the widest theological 


erudition with the greatest spiritual tolerance." 


In The Nation of November 9, 1865, James 
again expresses the melancholy joy of morality ina 


scurrilous attack on the character of Miss Braddon. 


e 2 t > a on 
0 4 fodogaileom 8 Aviw gaa 
- 
fpoitin Id of stsedind yvettnind 6a 
j 3 f ; we at . . sol 
= és taal * ves ¥ . yA 4 e 
=F ip 
¢ ed? Ons Bstor 19g Lavigol 
: i 
+ O01 fot Lantixiqa reetaomy ext 5 
at i= 
* 
4 Pr 
r ws P _ oa 
’ al - q*% 


3 meow wit eal ; 


- 
a : 
—" aad 
oth) ah cal bs 
’ r al a7 ~ 
‘ > . V Wee “4 Eta ee 


~pdmevs t , oizak. AT on 
WMSTOnRd Gores & 661 0 


ie) ne 

With the most delicate of innuendo and the most caus- 
tically polite periods of barbed sarchasm James tears 
Miss Braddon's book to pieces, and fills his review 
with subtle slurs on the character of the author which 
make one feel that in this case he put the anonymity of 
the article to good account. The sum total of his 
criticism seems to be in the question as to how the 
author knew so much about race-track gamblers, fast 
society, and the denizens of the demi monde. 

"Miss Braddon is the founder of the sensation 
novel. With people who are not particular, therefore, 
as to the moral delicacy of the author, or as to her 
intellectual strangth, Miss Braddon is very naturally 
a en 

We are now approaching a transition in James's 
writings. The next few essays show his changing stand- 
ards and lead directly to the point where he considered 
literature from the aesthetic standpoint only. Perhaps 
@ more extended view of various phases of aestheticism 
is necessary before a proper consideration of James's 


aestheticism can be undertaken. 


1. Unsigned review of Miss Braddon's Aurora Floyd. 


4ood a” 


TOBTSRO ony 40 atwla 


‘ 
‘. “aD ref + 
é “ 
‘ — 
. . 2 200 
+ 7 
a od ~ = 
‘ = ’ ’ 
. ~ - - 
a : wo 
’ , r¢é 
4 " z. ae 
F Ll aobias 
H 
} + 
° ‘ « 4 
: : s : ) 7 Q 


' : ~ * , 2 
vid : \ re 4 
be é 4 eS a | Ubi 
{ ~ vs 4 in 
; a Swe we : wo At 
{ { > 
i , 


. 3 | ; ' \ o &€68ac avsolyvayv to welv beb: 
‘; an =f rt aT ; ‘ ro 
q 1 to aob{srebiskoo @£ qoay a er0ted eat 
alt iP ol Py 
stents strebdnu ad 


| 7 ; : : ” vr rs aiks 


? - ap { : a Aa f : 
° . btS ht Dy ob bas anil 


—— 2... tie 
- eet 


a an ie 


CHAPTER IV 
PHASES OF AESTHETICISM 


In a previous chapter I have dealt with the 
School of Morals and the Aesthetic School from one point 
of view only, namely, their difference concerning the 
original justification of literature. The School of 
Morals claims that literature is justified only insofar 
as it instructs, teaches a moral lesson, and uplifts 
nankind. The Aesthetic School claims that literature 
is justified by the fact that it is pleasing, and that 
no matter how moral it may be, it is not good literature 
unless it is pleasing. Obviously these two schools 
of criticism have a wider scope than that which I have 
outlined. After defining their fundemental difference 
of opinion, each school sets out to define its limits 
and the extent of its applicability. The moralist tells 
what is moral and what is immoral, and prheses certain 
demands as to the kind of moral teaching to be included 
in various literary productions. The aesthete defines 
aestheticism, divides and subdivides, squabbles with 
other eesthetes as to shades of difference, and generally 
Splits hairs until---to quote from Miss Rebecca West's . 


book on Henry James---there are "no longer any hairs to 


S.VSte 8! 4 
1 es. 


acer 


tT aammeacae Ae . sai ited . 
a ) } Pi TB187 aiy BMLaig 
f ' é 


. y : 

. ‘ s a. 20% we” a 

, m0soe Om ieiosed ,atonatamiae 
+ rey a a 


hi ; oa a ain |) 
j i ) Foo sitentaes od + ba 
ep - . _—a -. « 
€ 
Le 
~ + > it? uw bens 
‘ -oa" u >. oie 4 $ “AS 
i % sty 
: + <7 Bf 
. ; tf faton 
I ¥ 
| a r ba P r 
| ; i «MOG 192 


i 

iq re 

q week 3 v i ) aes ve Loodoa. ilo : 

a ~~ ia 2. . : Poe 

7 7 - 3 j i ‘¥ + wea wae to. tnodse, od 


re h bgt, at na 
“ od ; ez a lela nO” 5 4 Bs e otoap: ot~ we, 4 ~ atta ‘pg 
; i 
ae yer rs fs ; ¥ 
~ fart ci B 1Le84H of on" sg eel Todd ~-~a¢ mal ‘vine + 


a3 of y 


pale Se 
Split and his mental gestures become merely the making 
of agitated passes over a complete ee 

Out of the mass of hair-splifting literature 
on the subject certain basic facts gan be gathered into 
a fairly workable theory of aesthetic criticism. 

Aesthetic criticism, or rather aesthetics, of 
which aesthetic criticism is only a part, has been 
variously described as a Science with a definite body 
of rules and laws, and an intangible, indefinable 
feeling. Probably a mean point between the two extremes 
will come close to the truth of the matter. Some defin- 
ition is certainly possible; but since most of the laws 
proposed by students of aesthetics are emphatically 
denied or else ignored by other students equally learned 
in the subject, aesthetics could hardly be called a sci- 
ence now, though it might develop into one. 

Aesthetic emperience is differentiated from 
other kinds of experience in Several ways. It is 


commonly spoken of as an enjoyment, an exercise and 


1. Wset, Rebecca: Henry James; London; Nisbet and Com- 
pany,’ Ltd. p. 116. 


vod 1080b viseole 
} rr ¥ 
f dix Pr ie Dime ,awel Bayar: sels 


‘ ) . wires 3 loc nsanm aA videdord Y e: a 
ore aati |  *RALe 


. - 
{ , % r 
: ; , '* a 2st —" ~ iad 
i . ; Mv 59 tz ad t oy 66 ito bee } 


aD ¥ ey 
| 4 J 4 rns 
a : a 


| ~low hefiae sd v. i Hbivog solv seihabted poe 

7 a i 

i a r 

; ; P : ian * ———— eof ae 
7 * wee Pwd I“ fe wick Li dees +f a 82. 
i @ 4 ‘ 

j Bb’! 40 4&I § 


-~ oV am tor 


: , \ 
: = El 
| | -2yow Ioxeves gL eoseivegze to aba 
A ' A a - I < ; 
f ; 


to soxloge 


ensa= 
cultivation of feeling. In aesthetic enjoyment capa- 
bilities of enjoyment attain their fulles@é and most 
perfect development. 

The aesthetic value of an object consists in 
its possessing certain characteristics by which it affects 
us in a certain desirable way, to draw us into the mood 
of enjoyable aesthetic contemplation. These character- 
istics, called "aesthetic qualities” have nothing to do 
with the usefulness or moral character of the object 
under consideration. Kant postulates that aesthetic 
enjoyment must be disinterested, that when we regard 
an object aesthetically we must not be in the least 
concerned with its practical significance or value. 

There are three forms of beauty: 14, sensuous 
beauty; 2, beauty of form; 3, beauty of meaning or 
expression. The fully rounded saesthete enjoys all 
three of these kinds of beauty to the limit. 

Through a long succession of loose thinking 
on the subject there has come to be some historical 
basis for the belief that there is a fundamental 
wuarrel between beauty and goodness, between morality 


and aesthetic enjoyment. Rationally there is no such 


vertsen eff 
re. 5 

» i 

fatrédostato Mtetteo gaks A0asOq 


v 3 ary tat: SiO TO = sentuteau 4 i? as 
: Us 
7. Ly f[utdor grax RO itex obte, 


t sete tadt , beteotedaiall ‘ed tenn | com ne 
| a fea@ol ei? al od ton Wenw ow Wii oLsengane ee (00 me 
iz outlay onaot tions Tostgq etl dtiw & f'E 8 ONE 


! vv ; - 
4 ; if s¢tused to eato? eetdt ete pte. 


| r 
° + Wear . = . P | ys — ~Y tus ‘ a 
| MAidetewis 4 i‘. OG s Pile - *&Y -¥ 46s 
fn 


pt) a> . ee z ‘ ol 1] } 
*V . . wv _ 1336) ~* BOM 
Ly) 
: i 
A nm a . ray 4b €) vf 2 
oo" J . | ale AOL B 
. Pe 
f us . 
i] 
5 


emioo sad Oo edt to ode. od 


ag ¢ edd tehied, oa 0 


oCcR obs a 
Bs Df - oe “bons 


fe 
“ ait 


SG 
quarrel. Those who maintain that there is overlook the 
fact that the difference of opinion lies in the different 
ways in which beauty has been defined. It is entirely 
possible for the moralist to enjoy the aesthetic quali- 
ties in external objects to the full; but the fact that 
sO magy immoral men have confined their activities to 
aesthetic enjoyment has put aesthetic enjoyment into 
disrepute in the judgment of certain unthinking moralists. 
Aesthetic morality is based upon a definition 
of the good in terms of the beautiful. Shaftesbury's 
Characteristics is saturated with sesthetic morality. 
Shaftesbury's idea is that there is a law in nature 
apart from revelation, a law of natural beauty which man 
would follow if he could find it. The organ which 
combines the laws of nature and finds the underlying law 
of beauty is taste. Shaftesbury lays emphasis on ridicule 
as a test for truth, because, according to his standards, 
nothing but the beautiful is true, and ridiclue will 
uncover the lack of beauty in the thing discussed. Addison 
and Steele based their moral lectures on taste and used 
ridicule as a weapon. 


The aesthetic morality which was phrased by 


retiip: odd 
ciuaed | dé so 


F 


10m ent 103 ta 


a 
bial 4 


> a . a 
Ba yeaa? 


~~» ° r ii 
WOeL 4 arom 


i. : vie . yi) > 
d fi Gi Ef — as obteddas 7 


+ i 


= BGO ie 
Shaftesbury in the sewenteenth century is resteted in 
the nineteenth century by Ruskin. Ruskin presents 
the extreme tendency to identify the aesthetic with the 
moral perception. He divides beauty into six types: 
1, infinity, the type of divine incomprehensibility; 
2, unity, the type of divine comprehensiveness; 3, 
repose, the type of divine permanence; 4, symmetry, 
the type of divine justice; 5, purity, the type of 
divine energy; and 6, moderation, the type of govern- 
ment by eg Ruskin eonpiued the effects of a 
Puritan ancestry and early training with an aesthetic 
education in the arts. There was nothing immoral 
about Ruskin. But the fact that he defined good in 
terms of beauty instead of defining beauty in terms of 
good made him the direct aesthetic ancestor of a line 
of which he would have been heartily ashamed. 

Ruskin said that intensity of feeling measures 
the superior man. Walter Pater followed Ruskin with 


the natural corrolary to this statement, that the well 


1. Ruskin, John: Modern Painters; Vol. II. "Of Ideas of 
Beauty." 


“uo toeo tte 


iat fs 
- 7 , ri r 7 aa Fon ' 
> ai Oven. Me vow oft L ) Ee} 0 
d “e ae : : ca — , 
wu? Hhias 


e 
cukzeele . 
LOu lL Sy 


es ae is. 
spent life is the one which apnlies this superior intens- 
ity of feeling to the largest number of experiences. His 
ideal was intensity of sensation. "To burn always with 


this hard, gem-like flame, to maintain this ecstacy, is 


success in hife." 


Pater's heir is DBscar Wilde with his search 
for the bizarre, Oscar Wilde doing time in prison because 
he recognized no limitations in his search for the novel 
in experience, even planning to "get religion" so that 
there might not remain even that form of emotional thrill 
foreign to his experience. And last of all, I suppose, 
comes Wilde's French counterpart, Baudelaire. 

Such a succession gives rise to s few general 
conelusions. The general tendency of aestheticism is 
toward an over-emphasis of the ability to enjoy sensa- 
tions in which aesthetic appreciation is involved. The 
overworking of the aesthetic sensibilities brings about 
a kind of aesthetic ennui which must be dispelled by a 
search for strange experiences where the strangeness 
keeps the aesthetic appreciative faculty alert. The 
search for the new sensation becomes a search for the 


bizarre, and degenerates into moral decadence. Thus 


o 
ra 


. ' a . s a . , } 7 
: - ; 4 aa " a8 9 B2eooya es 


; 7 rs - - 
} iF , Ga +i he- Te ‘ 
| tad 
q rat BL nolteloertceds stedseas 
. ; re coe bs ; 


ge! rittd oe © e8 edt 0 eu aun 
» , : ; mba 5 UVAv st 2 «SHE ITO! ww ate BS a ¥ a4 


ij tara doidw Lone pive epi o bal 


| 

f . Ld 

i) se : ae —. . 7 iaedbs - _ * Be: 

| di: va S1ehw Sonpelts a do 

7 | : . .% t ? aes st 9 vi oMLS a *. - ed neil [ - 
” L te a B & Mato bed mors sanve won. on J 208 fe 
a vs ae ~ 8 A 

1 © 965 eva a » ye 

. = ia oT ts 

acaba sd ie 


= 8) & 
the tendency to force aesthetic appreciation to work 
overtime and to keep it supplied with new sensations 
to work on brings about the split between moralism 
and aestheticism. A critic may be purely aesthetic 
and yet be moral. But when he justifies conduct 
which is wrong when judged by the moral standards of 
right and wrong by the claim that it is necessary to 
the aesthetic fitness of things, he has departad from 
his moralism and followed the aesthetic argument to 
its irrational conclusion. The fact that Henry James 
did this stands not as a proof that he had turned to the 
Aesthetic School of criticism. He based much of his 
criticism on aesthetic standards before that event. 
But it does serve as conclusive proof that he deserted 
morals entirely and finally “adored beauty and absolute- 
ly nothing else in the world." 

The aesthetic standpoint may be taken as a 
basis from which to work toward anything in human 
experience. There is aestheticism in art, aesthetic- 
ism in religion, even aestheticism in politics. The 
critic is concerned mainly with the latter two of the 


three kinds of beauty, beauty of form and beauty of 


- BB + 
row of AQiTALIOTgES ottedtses extot ot 
ano: deabies wen Adiw Setiqqua 21 qood i 
Naiiaron nsewted tilige-edt dnoda an ud 
oidedtses ~leiwy edegest oldie A 
Tansnoo seltitens, ed nedw dr.) el 
fe abtabaete Sano oft yd Sontut nediw. , 0” 


o 


- 


Of YIsasapoen et Ff tad? mislo eddy ow 
wort batreqeh wed ef) ,agnids to asegeeh tr 

oo Themigts olbfedteea ett bowellot 
aouat CuheH: tade toast edt no taafonoo | 
od? of bennit bad of tedt toosy aes tonnes 


ais to doum beaed ef- > .malettisorsod 


eT a = ae 


“BVO Jet? exroled shrebuate. bit 
bedzeaeb of dads tooe ovieufonco. 88. 
-stsloads ine (idend ‘Sexrods” eiteatt nap 
| | Sten ai» 

# oo solet od Yor taboqdnaste it 
nama mt Boldtene vcs 
-oitedtese 740 nt mitoltedtees et ait 
eit «=. «Rott ifog-nt makortedtiea 2 


oft Io ows t8tteal edd Sie <i 
to ytweed bas mrt. no, cheat 


ee 


7 <# q 7 = 
MI 
= ag ae 


= 89 2 
meaning or expression. His treatment of sensuous 
beauty depends upon whether he recognizes morality 
as well as aesthetics as a standard or whether he 
discards morality altogether. For instance, two 
years after James had definitely passed over to the 
Aesthetic School in criticism we find him, in a re- 
view in which he compliments William Morris most 
highly on his appreciation of the beauty of form, 
praising him also for "modesty of the imagination" 
and criticising Swinburne for lack of that quality. 

We have abundant examples of the appreciation 
of the heauty of form in Henry James's works, his 
critical reviews after 1866, his reminiscences, and 
the voluminous prefaces to the collected edition of 
his novels; and James is also an example par excellence 
of the third, appreciation of the beauty of meaning or 
expression. 

It is not necessary or pertinent to our in- 
quiry to go into all the phases of what is known as 
the science of aesthetics. Insofar as this science 
applies to literary criticism,it is confined to an 


1. A review of William Morris's The Earthly Paradise, 
The Nation, July 9, 1868. 


an 


exo Uns basta ; ved of 


b mxot, .) to w 


( 


at sg omeh Boe ;: ¥ 


ee gy ov 
7 r} 


pl ot. BA ie cl rhe | 
tera iA a4 

a — i — 

Ts . am J car i’ 

* Sialic us 8 | 


bet! ns 
ah +808 


=~ (£Q = 
abstract appreciation of one of the three kinds of 
beauty. 

I have mentioned Oscar Wilde's statement in 
De Profundis that he intended to be converted because 
he wanted to feel that sort of a thrill. There is in 
this statement an aesthetic approach to Christianity 
which is closely paralleled in an essay of Henry James 
which was published thirty-nine years before it. It 
is in this essay that James shows his complete change 
to the sesthetic in criticism. I shall consider 
the aesthetic approach to Christianity more fully in 
the next chapter which has to do with James's trans- 
ition from the School of Morals to the Aesthetic 


School. 


a. oe 
to shabdt send? efy fo eag to contain 


ca o% ae 


ni trtenasaeva kn 1% ? 


ssgeoed Aedtevnod, et 


td ad sonia find? ao he piioe tose J 
etingteuiuto at dosotyea witodesea’s 
Sonel yuneH to yseee ne at beletkaienall : 
tl sth ototed stacey onin-yesddte B bed t ji Tm 

' 9gmario vitelqmos eis ewode semet todd 
tébienaoo {fate I smalolzirzo ne | olted 

AL Gift stom ytlaaivetuts of domo 48 
-sositt B'aemet dtiw ob at ead sone x 
oisedteed ott oF | 


ey | é @ Te, 
) hy a : pal wa) . i 
re 7 
‘oF ery 
Pew’ ere ry om 


CHAPTER V 
TRANSITION 


It was Walt Whitman who first shook Henry 
James out of the s&tisfied composure of his moralistic 
criticism and made him think in terms of aesthetics. 
His influence was not sufficient to turn James com- 
pletely to aestheticism in criticism, but he was the 
first, though not the largest, contributing factor. 

Whitman's blatant vulgarity had long been a 
thorn in the side of the aristocrat of American letters. 
Many a time in the long evenings of literary conversa- 
tion in the remarkable James family Whitman's verse 
was torn to pieces and held up to ridicule. As far 
back as the spring of 1861 we find William James writ- 
ing about Whitman in this fashion: 

"You ask me 'why I do not brandish my toma- 
hawk and, like Walt Whitmen, raise my barbaric yawp 
over the roofs of all the houses.' It is because I 
am not yet a ‘cosmos’ as that gentleman avowedly is, 
but only a very dim nebula, doing its modest best, 


no doubt, to solidify into cosmical dimensions, but 


* 
anes rad 
VVeu A 

= 


j 
Hews tlh tsodse mf 
et { a: 
> a : 


i 


ue a eee Bee”, 
~~ 7 BLNCes mish f 11410 
* a ba 
Ps ie 

7 


comth Lsofmaos otat ytibis 08 0 
7 ™, ~_ ate 
i mh dl on é A 


ra 
ws 
rf . Fado: 


a A 


he E> pie 
an ‘awful sight’ of time and pains and patience on the 
part of its Mira th G? 

When Whitmen published Drum Taps in 1865, 
Henry James was filled with disgust at the vulgarity 
and egotistical posturing of the author. He gave 
vent to his feelings in a review which will be known 
as long as Whitman is we een The basis of James's 
criticism is purely aesthetic. His claim is that two 
of the three kinds of aesthetic beauty had been fear- 
fully and intentionally outraged in Whitman's book,--- 
beauty of form, and beauty of expression. 

On the subject of form James says the follow- 
ing: "Mr. Whitman's primary purpose is to celebrate 
the greatness of our armies; his secondary purpose is 
to celebrate the greatness of the city of New York. He 
pursues these objects through a hundred pages of matter 
which remind us irresistibly of the story of the college 
professor who, on a venturesome youth bringing him a 


theme done in blank verse, reminded him that it was not 


1. James, William: Letter to Mrs. Tappan. Reprinted 
in Henry James's Notes of a Son and Brother; N. Y.; 
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914. p. 


2. Mr. Walt Whitman, an unsigned review of Drum Taps; 
The Nation, November 16, 1865. 


I a a ee re ai nna Ta 


+ hs . 

ent no soketted bas eatsq bas emit: to ‘tdghe tif | 
yap at 

GO5L al agel mast bedetidug cant tae one 

yvitaniov sit ts tapgehh atin belliy auw 2 

evaag oH ods oft to gadwotaog fsont : a 

imont od [fiiw foldw weives « at sualieet te 

&'aemnal. to aisad.ed®? ‘aah el aantid’e « : 

ow? tedf at mbalo gi -citedteos ylexoy as i : 

. “tae? mood bad vinsed sltedtsea to abalt emda 

~-~,%o0d a'gamtisW ai besetsueo (Liamokthedak 4 bs : 

-nolsasiqxe to civged bae tro ke, 

-wolfot edd syse sompl mrot to teetdge ene . : i 

sterdefeo of si eszoging Utami tq a mean Bt a | 

ef saogisg ytebnooes ald ;ealmts wo to sas ta0 

oH ,.x#10¥ well to aia eit to seontsotys edt etatde 

tettam to ssnaq berbaud a dguondté sioelde 986 

egelfoo edt to yrele ed% To Vidktetenst so 

8 uid gnigetsd dtaoy omoasweasy a 50 edu 


ton enw ti tatd mid bebnimer onTDT sont 


Letairzgeg 
ay «i i T¢ A 


Sree doeed 


pepe 2 sad 


= Rs 
customary in writing prose to begin each line with a 
capital. The frequent capitals are the only marks 

of verse in Mr. Whitman's writings. There is, for- 
tunately, but one attempt at rhyme. We say fortuna- 
tely, for if the inequality of Mr. Whitman's lines 

were self-registering, as it would be in the case of 

an anticipated syllable at their close, the effect 
would be painful in the extreme." 

Speaking directly to Whitman on the same 
subject, he says: "But all this is a mistake. To be- 
come adopted as a national poet, it is not enough to 
discard everything in particular and to accept every- 
thing in general, to amass crudity upon crudity, to 
discharge the undigested contents of your blotting- 
book into the lap of the public. You must respect 
the public which you address, for it has taste, if 
you have not. It delights in the grand, the heroic, 
and the masculine; but it delights to see these concep- 
tions cast into worthy form. It is indifferent to 
brute sublimity. It will never do for you to thrust 
your hands into your pockets and cry out that, as the 


research of form is an intolerable bore, the shortest 


¢ » e 
~~” he = 
OB efotai ag & 


ap ee 
and most economical way for the public to embrace its 
idols---for the nation to realize its genius---is in 
your own person." 

He says further that Whitman outrages the 
sense and taste of the public "on theory, wilfully, 
consciously, arrogantly", and that no triumph, how- 
ever small, is won but through the exercise of art, 
and this volume is an offense against art. 

Note particularly thet in this turn to aes- 
theticism as a standard for criticism James has in no 
way forsaken his moral principles. There is no con- 
flict of right and wrong, good and evil; it is all a 
matter of outraged taste. Not until James wilfully 
Gustifies an act that is wrong by the statement that 
the act was necessitated by taste does he truly turn 
away from moralism. Walt Whitman presented no such 
conflict to the mind of James; there was no such decis- 
ion to be made. But within a year from the time he 
wrote his criticism of Whitman he did make that choice, 
and the cause was not in the field of literature. 


In his criticism of Dickens we find James still 


1. Unsigned review of Our Mutual Friend; The Nation, 
December 21, 1865. 


tt ew snexold to meloitizo es oh 


he 
ot le I Re Mee ee eo 
Sera -— 


‘ a 
sia edt of ton 


a 


-eban od 0% 


j 
, 


toltine ond 
YS bet ‘ 


oa a - = P . = 
© Dierir eat ai Fou sew vat ‘a0 ie 


“ ale oar 
; i 
7 a Ya vs i) 
io : 
mn SO RS ene ED SRE 


- as 


‘y Ye ee eK 


z 7 ef a ‘ “4 “ 5 
‘Dael2Y LagduM a99 to welve ola t 
; . iy ry ny (88688 | “4 ‘Tedme Sf 


+ 45 = 
a moralist. He demanded philosophy in the author so 
that humanity might be uplifted by his productions. 
"Mr. Dickens is a great observer and a great 
humorist, but he is nothing of a philosopher. Some 
people may hereupon say, so much the better; we say, so 
much the worse. For a novelist very soon has need of 
@ little philosophy. ---- A story based upon those ele- 
mentary passions, in which alone we seek the true and 
final manifestation of character, must be told in a 
spirit of intellectual superiority to those passions. 
That is, the author must understand what he is talking 
about. The perusal of a story so told is one of the 
most elevating experiences within the reach of the 
human mind, The perusal of a story which is not so 


told is infinitely depressing: and unprofitable." 


James's attitude towards Anthony Trollope was 
one of condescending toleration. This quotation from 
a review of Bhe Belton Estate is typical of his treat- 
copie,” 


"We do not make these remarks in a tone of com- 


1. Unsigned review. The Nation, Janugry 18, 1866. 


, 
| 


RO ais ia. 


‘mm gl ety ert me} 


m oe a. = SS om net 
a a eee ee ee 


a a « 
ody an edt al ¢dgosoltndg bebsaamed’ 68 
-anoltonboty alt vd seh di al od. tify tim vt 

S873 8 boa Tevyeedo Veeme a 8 anexole 

emoe -tsdiqgouuflidg & Ze gninton af on ii: 


i) he 


On ,¥Se ow ;rtedted sit uldpm os . tae nocsored yaa | 


20 Deer aan moos exer Salilevoa 8-204 - 98% 
-efe esots Hoge beuad C10te h-=~ sUdgogor ; 


bua euxt edd deee sw eno fe dotiw nt /anotas 
Bs 

ent Slot ed taux tetoatade to soltetaetts 

: 4 

2 


par % 
giltfet ef of tedw Snatatveian tagm todtaa | ile 


-enolidaaq eaéit ot ytfioltequea lantootfetn: % 


ev Yo eno al Sfot os Prete 4 to fnawyed oat 
ont to tenes edt midtiw seone Tey aaitat 

on ton ul doldw ytota 2 to Lsautoy ent: 

" ofdatitougua bia syalesetgeb Clete 


SAW ecollox? yootind @btawot ebusizte stwenat | 
mort solvatomp, ald? tolterefot galinsosed 


a 
~tee1t eid to fwoiggt af @ stoteit nested edt 20 el 


. ss) 


weer a 


: 4 i 
-a00 to emot so a} eatvases saed? eas hey ie baie) 


O98! Of wraunat .0teK ed? 


2 ER ee 

; ie es ; | 

= line Wale 
_ : 


=p AGP we 
plaint- Mr. Trollope has been before the public long 
enough to have enabled it to take his measure. We 

do not open his books with the expectation of being 
thrilled, or convinced, or deeply moved in any way, and, 
accordingly, when we find one to be as flat as a Dutch 
landscape, we remind ourselves that we have wittingly 
travelled into Holland, and that we have no right to 
abuse the scenery for being in character." This is 


neither moralism nor aestheticism; it is ennui. 


Another aesthetic review of the same sort as 
that of Whitman's Drum Taps is James's review of Swin- 
burne's Re be, The poem is objectionable to 
James because it lacks the form which is essential to 
good poetry- Here again we have the aesthetic demand 
for form and symmetry. 

"A dramatic work without design is a monstros- 
ity. We may rudely convey our impression of Chaste- 


lard by saying that it has no backbone." 


The characteristics of the English nation as 


1. Unsigned review. The Nation, January 18, 1866. 


ys 12 
uJ [loxk 


oldw mot edt odoal tk yee S 
" 


’ , ob . of 7. 4 at N ~ ty ‘ h ~ 
/ 4 wae eS whe ¥ ~) ¥ ¢ ed -) Ww ms Byes Aten rn #) ci? +, og OC >" 
. ; 
o P -_! , a 
‘Exrs oman: a oa MIO 
1 oe” 5 
- > T de e LJ 
: f it salise odiiw wiow o 
r “ r r 
~ 4 Mi. i a Faogd \ 
. ¢ =~ " ‘J J 
.enodwdosd on ead 3) 
: ee , 4 
‘fang edt? Yo- sett tot caren, od vi 


Ey 


a A 
shown in Hereward,the Last of the English appealed 
strongly to James. In a review in The Nation January 
25, 1866, he said that Hereward was a masterpiece and 
Kingsley a genius. 

"Hereward is a masterpiece. We have never 
been partial to Mr. Kingsley's arrogance, his shallow- 
ness, his sanctified prejudices; but we have never 
doubted that he is a man of genius. ----- By as much as 
he is insufferable when he dogmatizes like a schoolboy 
upon the characteristics of his nation, by so much is 
he admirable and delightful when he unconsciously ex- 


presses them." 


In The Nation of February 1, 1866, we find 
James treating a "Sunday" book very respectfully; but 
before the end of his review he lapses into a banter- 
ing style which shows some change from his former un- 
compromising, wunsmiling moralism. 

"Little girls, we suppose, will read it and 
like it, and for a few days strive to emulate Grace 
Leigh. But they will eventually relax their spirit- 
ual sinews, we trust, and be good once more in a fash- 
ion less formidahle to their unregenerate elders." 


1. Unsigned review of Mrs. E. R. Charles's Winifred 
Bertram. 


: a ; 
ee a Te 7 - 


= . 
7 > 


bofoeqqs iatlgee Sit No wend so, Samal ab 
Gzasial ae shi at welvet a ut sonst @ bag 
ain a aw eels ‘tede via 
su iney B 

~pyen=svad ef -sosliretsam = al brawett 


4 
> 


-wof fede did  OONSAOMNS a'yeragaid .«d of £ £3 x 

teven svat ew tud -senihate esq bot ttveciemtia 
as deum aa ¢8----=.8i)nen to apd 2 ob ea) % 
rodfoodes s anti dss ktwanod si sew oldat | 
| #i foum o&8 yd ,noiven eff To aolveivetpemedle 


-xe Ylayolosnoom ed aentw Interdiyifes Snes %. 


Sntt ew ,698! ,f£ Yeaundef te noitalt etD . ” 
| tud :viietioeaqest vroev stood “vebawe” o | ere: 
=yetred! s otat veoqel en welve: atit to bre‘ ¥ 
-a8 temyot abst mov egnedo oma awote dobdw" 
° mabiseon gulf imens ‘ 

Dna th Soot SIlw ,esoqque oe ety sone 
sont) etalume of evintelageb wor 9 wht 
-tivige thed? xfer ti lastoeve tfiw wate usd 
-de8% a mt etom enue boog od ba tent or gents? cy. Fs 


f. 
r: " areble stupas sted ‘~ 


a Bie 
It is somewhat a relief to the student of 
James to observe the change from the original unsmil- 
ing championship of the "Sunday books” in The Sch6n- 
berg-Cotta Family. He is none the less moral, but 


he has found his sense of humor. 


James published two reviews in Tha Nation 
in the issue of February 22, 1866. The first; a re- 
view of Mrs. Gaskell's Wives and Daughters, praises 
the author for making the story so real to the reader. 
He says it is powerful, delicate, humorous, and pathetic. 
The other is a review of Henry D-. Sedley'’s Marian Rooke, 
and in it James defends his country from the attack of 
an unsympathetic American. 

"So divinely disinterested a hostility was 
never inspired by a mere interest in abstract truth. 
A tour of the United States in midwinter, with a fatal 
succession of bad hotels, exorbitant hack-drivers, im- 
pertinent stgpamboat clerks, thankless female fellow- 
travellers, and terrific railway collisions, might 


possibly create in a generous British bosom a certain 


: see a oo — 
i rl to Sag 9S aaa one 
; 
j 


A I a I a TI yn gig * ne i Rall iat iy ene 


i eget a ne een anenepesal ear naisaeclineaiiaaa 


‘Teheet end of [eet os erota eft auishe) ‘sot 


= (mil ‘Stevia -geed trad idvoxe aLotox bad to nol 


7 v% 
7 
. oe (neem a a9 tla eSignal an 
sk 
a 


« ie 
tsgrits ott Of telfew @ tatidwoe Gi eee i 


-| "ae 


ny Lantgica sae Moe eget 1 
iist si? af. "exec Wawa” edd to ee 


,+e70M epel ent gpee af oe vl 
-‘tomvei lo senes eid BE 
} act ni ewelveyt ow? pbadtetidug: ian 
ot © ,fe7kt eS2, 0885 . 28 qrantdet So ane 
moe 
aosiatq ,axetdyial boa sexvil so! Lfhetead Mm 


ies 


¢ 
’ oie -'- 


‘thy Bre ,erorodnd .etaohish  Sakrewog al. 
size @'yefhef .f ¢gaaeh be wolves & ah: 
os778 edd moxt vyntatns @fa ebnered ‘gonst 7 
reer ol tert amigas 

iow uvifiteodt so betdsxetaraks wheat vad o8F i 
foy? Soatveds cl deetetad etemia “di bes oll 


w ,tetalebim go) eetaré het tag ‘cid | 


ca ees 
~ a oe & 


[rok olsedt apottaand Siete seosmouta t 
tigin ,aaolelifen panier oihteres fae 193 
treo 2 moaed, dettint agoweneg act otaex0 


pI ; ; 
ie 
mn bee 
= ¥ * j ." s¢ Abs! x F 
~ ig ayy : ey 
( 74 , i? ah | 
Ly a 


a AOL ss 
lusty personal antipathy to our unmannerly democracy, 
& vehement and honest expression of which could not 
fail to make a chapter of picturesque and profitable 
reading. But it takes an emancipated, a disfran- 
chised, an outlawed, or, if you please, a disappoint- 
ed American to wish us to believe that he detests us 
simply on theory." 

One wonders whether in this passage James was 
not giving his charitable view of American Notes and 


the American parts of Martin Chuzzlewit. 


The next work of James shows again that he 
had not yet departed from the School of Morals in crit- 
icism. There is an interesting comparison of Miss 
Braddon, whom he had recently attacked, with Mrs. D. 
M. Muloch ae tel Still, one can see in this review 
that James was not at all blind to the appeal of the 
less moral of the two writers. 

"There is something almost awful in the 
thought of a writer undertaking to give a detailed 


picture of the actions of a perfectly virtuous being. 


1. Unsigned review of Mrs. Craik's A Noble Life; The 
Nation, March 1, 1866. 


ff a we : vy oe vi 
’ eas | 
9 yale eed eyes) 1 Ae Reine Spill Lapel fol on: Lae Taal - —— , 


a 


- OD - 


etisalat ee 


— a ° . ’ 

, os ww Ytenmema tao of tiveqlins lanos 
\ * « Z : =" j 1 7 

ton bluos iv to noleserqxe cataod Bia wt 


sf oatllow? bcs adegseteeelg fo retgedé- 8 & ‘ 
‘(aes 
a 
“talogquels oa ,sseele #oy tL .9 , bewaldno meee 
d Pe ay 

a 4 


fastals betveqlsqame os sexat tf 08 


oa a ar 2 an 


nage 
' 
@ 


SM S7Ge755 of Jad? evebled at €6 delwuedis 
‘ bd 
, ™ .“roedt 


ste 
. ‘aN Aero, Onsaeseaqg eld? ab sed¢otw axebiow os r* 


Ln 


1 caoltems’ Yo wetv eidstivato. ait am 


[3a0G0 ‘nddash to ei1ay maok 
oe 
rai? ULSBa SWORB Beaal To ise ixen off pi" 


“tiie al afetoM to fogdes sit movt Seduaaed cou # 

noeltaqhos gaiseoretal na at sred® 
boteaden clinovet bad of codw ob 
eivez sis? a2 oes pao ano ,ffF9e etre ? 


a = Sg i tna cite 
4 
a 
- 
= 
“ 


ec? to Leeqas edt of Batlid Bla te. ton. eae a he 
Tan : 

-exotinzw ows eft to . oun 
wh 


alt ai fvtws teomts aniilteaee $< clea 
heilateh s evig of goitetrebay asticw «a % 
-Rehk od suoutahy vitoetqeq 2 + Baotton | we 


? ; - is - | - Der Ai 
Wee Ree a eM 4 


< 


~ oO. = 
----Miss Muloch is kindly, somewhat dull, pious, and 
very sentimantal---she has both the virtues and the 
defects which are covered by the untranslatable French 
word, honnéte. Miss Braddon is brilliant, ingenious, 
and destitute of a ray of sentiment; and we would never 
dream of calling her honnéte. And, as matters stand at 
present, to say that we prefer the sentimental school 

to the other, is simply to say that we prefer virtue to 
vice." 

Even more moral is James's discussion of a 
translation of the works of eeave he He says that 
in the ordinary acceptance of the philosophy the taint 
of Epictetus is the taint of slavery, but that there is 
a way in which he can be approached to some advantage. 

"That no gain can make up for the loss of 
virtue is an old story, but Epictetus makes it newr--- 
This is good Stoicism; and to bear it well in mind is 
neither more nor less, for us moderns, than to apply 


Epictetus." 


Two other reviews come before that one in 


which the change in James from the moralist to the 


l. Unsigned review of Thomas Wehtworth Higginson's 
edition of The Works of Epictetus; The North American 
Review, April 1866. 


/wwolq {ich dedwemes ,ylboldt et doe 


t baa sentetw ea ated sad ofa-~-fatig tf. 

\ ‘ ian Se 

St sicstalanardaw ed? yd Betevod sie deb 
tolseqnt ,teslilind ef nObbatt- ealil ~~ vai 
bis2y ew bie | tnebitdes to tar & to 
Diaoh StegTan sh , bith ec sonod Sen sat aa 
‘Oofoe Lainetiitiss eft tete7g aw dade aa ot 


q.348 


at 
t if 


a > a 


ostziv wetesy ey Jadd yao of viamte Be 


ni 
“8 | oOisagealh e*semst si’ faxoh eyow ‘neve ee 
We 


fads ike oF -SuTetolqi to atwow eft to 


ia? eat? uige oi iAg efit to Sotalqeges y dy 2-708 a ted 
Da | J Psi i 


', gtevele to titet efd ab age 
esancvbe sees ef Sotdosoiges od aso en Aolde 
of edt xO? da ofem nan ihag, on team 


~ah asian suvetaiqn tad peréta Sie na Bk. 


= 


oi Ifww ti taod of Spe sma tn L088 fo03 


i.e 


Sins 


j{uqe Of nedd ,oavebom ag sot aged 198 610m on 


oY >, 
~ 


‘, 
* .eut 


onG food @toted saing swetvey redto owt a 


‘3 00 celivened eft govt semul af egnato ede dt 


AP Oe ee — 


‘nozatyatA cavowsnoR eanodt - 
Wolteon AI2on off se 


as “ae 


at Bae Smile v — | aa 
x > See 


. eas 
aesthete may be judged complete. Between the time 
he published his review of Drum Taps and the time 
when he showed unmistakably that the last trench had 
been won by the aesthetes and moralism had been given 
up, James shifts from one side to the other, depending 
upon the subject matter of the various books he review- 
ed. But there had been no conflict on the question 
of right and wrong. His aestheticism was still of 
the sort that is quite consistent with morality. The 
change will be easily discernible. 

The two essays which come before the change 
are more or less unimportant; they add little or nothing 
to our investigation. One is a review of Victor Hugo's 
Les Travailleurs de la Mer in which he compliments Hugo 
in general but remarks upon a decline in his abilities. 
The other is a review of George Eliot's Felix Holt, the 
Radical. He says that the merits of the book are 
immense, but that there are examples of compromise in 


it which reduce its value as a work of art. 


1. Victor Hugo's Last Novel; Unsigned review. The 
Nation, April 12, 1866. 


George Eliot's Felix Holt, the Radical; Unsigned review, 
The Nation, August 16, 1866. 


ie ae A ar ails ipl Tce ota 


~~ i ae Seca 


‘a8 


os ted eto gwen ou bs od’ yet ote 
; Bu a 
HT et to wolves $4 Bedelia | 

i ' Pins ; Tx S 4 
: | Tat? yidedtecteions hewsode 


1iisiom jum aotedtoes edt EE now Ae 
| . “5 » be ny 4 9) 7 
,;tadto « oy eblie eno morx? eltida Es) aL , 
| , ‘cod stolxev et to testam. tootdae emnan 
io totiinos on need bud sade 08, 
. , iad 
mneloigedvwaosa wih “Roo tw ins tdy 
jiw Scevalendo etins az tang tn0 
-6ldiareoelbh yliege ed ewe 
io of Jled emoo doliw evades owe ed? 
ts rit 2b ody ,;tnatcogming Stef s6 e 


OE tod t eive ek eno nol tant teaeval ‘ 


| 

, 

| mri ataemifqmos ef doldw nt xe af sh supel tiem 
Be ‘lid# Gia al enifoeah # soqn exraine* sud ferem 
) 2 stlow xifet atolls eq100ed Xo weiwer o et ‘teal 
| exis x4odd' ele to ed itom ei? tedt a¢se el te 
‘f palvorqmoo Yo delqmexe exe stedt gadt ded , 


-J%8 To ArOw 8 se epfev ett sosies dok 


| = en allieetdietitentendtide tend : 
-welvot Senutent -iferel 
»wetvers im tant) ‘Saotbad oil F 
. oie 4 
J ‘i - 
= > pe 


erie 


Pe ame He te 


pay (Toe 

I have mentioned the aesthetic approach to 
Christianity, an approach which is usually found in 
connection with Catholicism rather that with Protest- 
antism because of the many aesthetic appeals in the 
Catholic faith and rituals. The next two examples 
from James's reviews are an interesting study because 
the first shows nothing of the aesthetic, while the 
second, which is about the same author, reveals the 
aesthetic reaction to Catholicism. 

The aesthetic turn to Catholicism began in the 
nineteenth century with Chateaubriand. In 1802 Chateau- 
briané attempted to bring about a Catholic reaction in 
the atheistical age of Napoleon and Voltaire. The ap- 
peal was made to the historical nationalists. The sub- 
stance of his argument was that Catholicism lends itself 
marvellously to effusions of soul. It is a mistaken 
notion that Catholicism is barbarous, he said, that it 
is of the Middle Ages, that it retards civilization. 
What we ought to do is prove that the Christiam religion 
is the most poetic, the most human of all religions. The 
modern world owes everything to it. It is as poetic as 
paganism. Chateaubriand compared Hades with Hell, gods 


with angels, for the beauty of the legends surrounding 


—— tied te te Se ae Si eS ne kee oe Vee bo 


ee ee ee 


‘ are tekvess ety benottaem svat ET 

i 62 Sabin doscuggs no... Uthamiae 
: | verdvat Netollogsad ath hota 
ifoee Yanan ott to onpRogd ie 


| a , teen. off -fantli:x bas aAgist ood 


(iFBSTSETaA? Ase ete wolves a's 


Ltodite exh te ifon awod 
‘ oj es I | ete rant 1, 
; arly ats ; ~to07Tna sires aot tooda ai totdw bao 


@ rl 
smtlolfodiad oF noiteses obtmia 
Py - ame 
: 
; ‘okfodte of nist olfediees, ode ee 
: Pome ye nah 
i ied Jusetaid dtiw yistaeo. dia 
{ 


it20 a2 toode aniad of betquetta 
ras : ‘6tiedloVv Sma noselogell to enue Igottebear 


. et -27aliseotien faotnofald efd od ebam 


a ge eae 


ea . az lotlodted tad? saw taéngta eid Xo | 


pt gl ‘(noe to. enoleutte oF elnaolhel 


eee 


Tl tat? ,bies ed ,enotedtad af eétotfotead fad? 


‘Sasiiivie shxetes ti tant .eogh eLbdIM Saga 


Gee 
— 


Maisjceizid odd tad? evorqg af ob oF ran am 
6notglie1 Ifa Bo heads teom ad? ,olivoog Faom | 
t #3 tt of ‘gaddtgreve Bewo Aaa) _ 
ay iflok atiw eehal bexaqaos fastrdsaetaedgD ' : 

motu Bipeget ett ke yineed odd 10%, vate 0 a 


("inal 


j " 
i] 


ar ee 
~ 
. 
+ 


ma. OP ap mm ar mais 


= Boe 
then. 

In 1863 Renan wrote about the same aspect of 
Ora gro ee" He was a skeptic. He had lost faith 
in revealed religion, but he had preserved his delight 
in the aesthetic aspects of Christianity. He felt 
that the highest praise for Jesus was that he satisfied 
the aesthetic sense. Religion, with Renan, had taken 
refuge in the senses and had become an attribute of lit- 
erary aesthetic enjoyment. 

This attitude toward Christianity has become 
widespread since Renan's time. An example of the fail- 
ure to distinguish between religion and aesthetic re- 
ligiosity is:seen in William Mosier's book, The Promise 
of the Christ Age in Recent Literature, published in 
1912. Another example, which I have already mentioned, 
is Oscar Wilde's De Profundis, published in 1905. Wilde 
says his epicureanism led him to the feet of Christ. De 
Profundis is filled with a delicate aesthetic apprecia- 
tion of Christ, after the manner of Renan. 

In The Nation of December 14, 1865, James re- 


views Eugenie de Guerin's Journal, which had just been 


1. Chateaubriand: Genie de Christianism. 1802. 
2. Renan: Life of Jesus. 1863. 


a | 
‘ aH 
as ar 
és ~ 
gf 
v¢ 
; 
* aa 
fl 
o SARen 
4s us 
* art 
oi 
“ ' 
enn 
er 
- il 
- ¢, 
8 é 1 


~ b «+ 
VOISEGS OFF 


a 
“2° 


joi } 
a 
Sort 


uren didiw .fotelled .esnea olited 
N 


S508 5as, notatler heewled dalgaatesisias 
| ry 
Tha vv at 2 Ag tidy ‘ el ymace 


oitese sisolleh a Adlw beflit af 


renner to tated sdv tet ta debate oie 


iaar , Of st09dmeset to moive eff wal 


ee 


at wil? wogs stocw aaneh Gaek 
bed #H Lplbdgadta Se Baw 3H Z 
hav s36 7, “Wad ed sug nolstbet bik 
~~ inal Taira Yo stooges oltenite 


Jah? eae epaet «0% selerq teedaid 


‘ ¥ a ei! 


Ag 
$2 0S eeoed Aat bos @s6hne8 ete ai 7 


as 


Tnemgpobas olter ~ 


é a’ 
folwiS brewot ebosicge aide 


fotiex® BA ert? a aeneh eonts 


d o'teteok mell TiS al semkces: 
, 
Stutetes id -dasoes ol 

tosTonaAa 


aibsrtoxt ag’ obsry 


voor of oF mid Bel watcwecaotge 


4 


Coldw ,Lanwgol e'atyen® ob elnennil 
: \ 7 wl 


‘Sula iguitd 96 etme ‘boatadus 
“OGL 080% Yo eth 4 


Sl ey eee Pare Ree ~— a © 


sie ‘ 


a Bae = 

published in English translation. There is in this 
review nothing of the aesthetic. He compliments 
the book more for its piety than for its style. 

"Her style loses much in translation. It 
is probable, however, that the book will be accepted 
for its piety,---- Her peculiar merit is that, without 
exaltation, enthusiasm, or ecstacy, quietly, steadily, 
and naturally, she entertained the idea of the Divine 
Goodness." 

Turning now to The Nation of September 13, 
1866, we find James's review of Eugenie de Guerin's 
Letters written from an entirely different point of 
view. His recognition of the sacunthat a thing which 
is "fundamentally repulsive” has “incidental charms" 
is purely aesthetic. He delights in the aesthetic 
aspects of this example of pure Catholicism much as 
Renan would. 

"So complete a spiritual submission, so com- 
plete an intellectual self-stultification, would be 
revolting if there were a matter of choice. It is 
because they are a matter of authority and hecessity, 
things born to and implicitly accepted, that the reader 
is able to put away his sense of their fundamental re- 
pulsiveness sufficiently to allow him to appreciate 


their incidental charms. It is the utter consistency 


SP 6 ae lcm ni 


i + 


Pe 8S Fe ee tt Ee 


letnomebau® xheatd to eaned att yous tug esate 
e%Gqs oF mid wolfs of vitoeLol ye as \ 
lindo tevee ent ek $I sanrusde tabank bat 


et ake ee ee ne Oe a a a a) ns 


=f a bad faa? ont to-.o0 iV LagC981 ai. 


oT s/) 


gow ,noltaeltlitiues-Sles lautoel fetal Ba | 


re:tT ‘Nollalé@uest deifana of pode bid 
‘tgmoo oH solfettees oiff to aaldseg 
aleve e¢i 16% meade etetq Vet. 13e aa eg xo 
r 

Pat Segm eeaol elyza 708" | . & 

B éd I] 200 et Salt , revewod .ofde 
1 a =] Titeom wéilnos tel ~-~-,tiolg ark 
ets ,Tostaoe : Bait ld oe rottadie 
hantsixefne gifa Clee 

0 [Iau ef? oF wos salar? 

ii to wolves @ ‘eemal batt ow. 


TTLb ylexitne ae mort gerd hae we 


: iftnehbioni” ani ‘orisien’ yc tinamabagt 


a edd of eviititles of -Olteiteos ols 
oun oetoifodted em; to efquexe sidd 36 avoe 
Bite 
is 
~hivow. 
4 : 


/Oolissindse lantiitiga @ etefynoo of? 
f 


a! 


| -6o0lodo to 19ftem a etéew ote? 22 aie 
c& one Yvizodius to setvam @ ete yedd i 


t fade (hotvenae Sse kaan bia of n1od i 


erie: 


{ = ! 


we SES aa 
of Mlle. de Guerin's faith, the uninterruptedness of 
her spiritual subjection, that make them beautiful. 

A question, a doubt, an act of will, the least shadow 
of a claim to choice----these things would instantly 
break the charm, deprive the letters of their invalu- 
able distinction, and transform them from a delightful 
book into a merely readable one. That distinction 
lies in the fact that they form a work of pure, unnit- 
igated feeling." 

Here we have James the aesthete. His change 
from the moralist school is complete. He stands be- 
fore this example of complete subjection fearful lest 
any move on the part of the subject to free herself 
from a condition fundamentally repulsive may spoil 
the aesthetic beauties of the incidental charms, as 
a scientist might stand before some rare specimen of 
butterfly he had pierced with a pin, fearful lest its 
struggles to free itself should damage the beautiful 
colors on the wings. The fact that James recognizes 
that the spectacle is fundamentally repulsive only 
adds to the repulsiveness of his own admiration. 


But James was to give an even more startling 


— a gaa eae ee 


ie Bd 


Cy 


, 

UIC ES ws  ttiet 3 wn iteth em 
=; wy 
sed mony oiled tade ee ae 
itlw te. fea as stduod @ 408 
‘Ae esondt----solodp ofa 
V 7] ’ J is ; 5 1.80 } ao i od? evirgeb @18h6 @ ; 
oi? wiolenaid bee ,nolteniaaie 
i‘Tomlvets fied] “689 eldalaet gheteg ne 


ow fiow A oxvot vod? tadd pat andy 


-6todines ed? & » CLR Ove ow oreH. ui | 

aistata off -telqmoo ul [antes volfatom oft 
oi flottaet nolteetdua otelgmon To efgmaxe 
ifeered set of foetdue edt te faq. edt a 
“i evialivges wiietnenmabas® : not? Linen: r 

= 


n a 


a8 ,amrade Lstueblont ad? te eohiuacd olteds 
NO(LOGQR AITaY emoe stoked basse sittin telta 
tool Lutupet ,ni¢ # Avin bedvely hax ot ct 
fuged sd? ogomah bLoode Bloat). ost? ot wll 


_ 


Coot Bema Jatt dost off, ,epnlw edd ne 
“ao mv lslocet Ullatnemsiast of ofostoega 

nolterivibe owe aidoto enorevigluqes ait ¢ 
ilfstate etom seve a ovha oF saw anal ba 


int 7 ea 
a] oP a enn 


i 
a io oD 3 “4 , 
: aif vi 7 y 
; i t ' ae 
4 ’ > dow tf : 
: _ on 


= Bee 
example of his change to aestheticism and desertion 
of the School of Morals, evidence in his writings 
which concerns itself with matters more important 
than literary judgments and amounts to moral turpitude. 

I have shown how James changed from moralist 
to aesthete, and when the change became apparent. In 
order to show why it happened, I shall have to gourather 
thoroughly into the history of events which took place 
while James was writing the reviews which have been 
discussed in these chapters, and the aesthetic influences 
in the fields of art and literature which contributed to 


the change. 


o a Ss 


eoneut tan! otvedtaca sd? Sasa Stevcato. seeds ‘al 


o¢ betsdiasnoo dotdw ersteredil Sus éta to ablert 


- 66 - 


noliceteb bos mato lteddaen od eqnado ald to ely 


Sbytiqud 
tellaros 


7 ? sr > 
tia eJhiets 


e/ Tat. on of 


sosiq soot 


neod eved sotdw awelve: edd yatéiow sew com 


“810m O° atngott Bas atgompbot giag 


toldw etceve to yrotein odd oft yidgno 


tw aid at peaebive ,aterol te—-fsooteg 


inl exom sxstCemdduw tioett eovwe 


, - ~ +t ee - 

oxt hea Sian Bene word nwonts even Lt 4 i 
, = on L 

i¢8 omeood esnado edt neodw bas jee 1739 


ovad [fava I ,honegqe¢ad Jiogaw woe Ov ae 


‘ON 
. 
a 


i ‘ ' 


CHAPTER VI 
PART I:- JAMES'S DESERTION OF THE SCHOOL OF MORALS 


One of the influences which figured kargely 
in James's change to aestheticism was his early deser- 
tion of the School of Morals. His aestheticism would 
probably have developed without the added impetus of 
this change; his early training and the aesthetic in- 
fluences of art and literature which surrounded him in 
his youth would probably have been sufficient, but 
without this desertion of morality the change to aes- 
theticism might have been considerably delayed. The 
moral crisis, borught about by events which occurred 
while he was writing his early critical reviews, left 
him without a moral philosophic basis and pointed 
directly towards aestheticism as a standard fd6r actions. 
This fact may be brought out by a consideration of the 
historical events which occurred between 1865 and 1868 
and James's reaction to these events. 

Miss Rebecca West declares that an injury which 


Henry James sustained in 1861 while assisting in putting 


I ae ae ee ae EN ram gemma Mla shanties a poets te ns — 


Lv MaPTAHS i 


E i a 
10 400853 BHT MO WORRAMGAC 2 Sa ee 


iPOnay r 
; 


a : 
‘4 

i : 

a r _ Lit cow mulak + + tea 

“18865 Yitso cit sew mslottedtaes of esnado ete 1 . 
‘ivow maloiteijaou elk  @l exOM 6 foodee edd Seummane 


to Guvegm! beibe edt teodtiw fedofeveb evan 


x 


ea re es _e 
. 
t 
~ 


rloptal bewslt doidw eoomenttat ed? to end 


see OFF Dae yointey? ylome ald tenes 
“i mid bebasorine doldw ewtatetil bas #xe to aeom 
10 ,Tesloittive osed evad Yidedorg Sivow am 


“#88 ot oymado oft ytifesom to notéteged aldd sued 


it becaish Yiderehtence seed evad tigtn manana 


. / A eee 
betwee doldw ataeve yd Tods tdéautod" aleing ae 


Tiel ,awelvet [ecoltizo yfise sid nalvigw asw on elk 
, 1 f 
Sevalog bus eised oldqosoliny fares os éuort ar 


oe F 


-2noitos 10% Sxabosate « ga melolteddtess shiawot vitoes 
of? to nolisuebisnos a xd tuo Tdgu oud ed Yea tost é 
806f bas 438L neewfod betsv000 doldw esaeve faotro# 


bs Lbs 
‘e0neve esedit of nolvoser atas Bh 
of. 


ioidw (uistabong tants sersfoeh saew aooedeh aalh - * 


oq of ynitetess efidw Lael at dentedene Bemal y 
by A) 


i] 
f) } 


abe 


BGs = 
a 
out a fire changed the whole course of his genius. 
Her opinion is that if he had not been kept from 
active participation in the Civil War he would have 
been fascinated by the American scene and would have 
made this the subject matter of his writings. This 
romantic estimate of the effect of active participa- 
tion in war can hardly meet with acceptance. On the 
contraty, it is almost certain that any close contact 
with the sordid materialism of war would immediately 
have disgusted one who was finally driven to more con- 
genial surroundings in Europe by the ugliness of the 
American scene. But the fact that there was a war 
and a period of reconstruction undoubtedly did have 
its effect on Henry James, and perhaps the injury, too, 
for it served to detach him from the action of the 
scene and allow him to observe more fully. If a par- 


ticipation in the war could have brought home to James's 


1. West, Rebecca: Henry James; London; Nisbet and 
Company, Ltd. 1916. pp. 19-20. In 1861 the Civil War 
broke out, and, had it not been for an accident the 
whole character of Mr. James's genius would have been 
altered. If he had seen America bu the light of 
bursting shells and flaming forest he might never have 
taken his eyes off her again, he might have watched her 
fascinated through all the changes of tone and organi- 
zation which began at the close of the war, he might have 
been the Great American Novelist in subject as well as 
in origin. 


i ee ee ee ns 


x 
c 


- HA + 


~ 


e ad ‘i 
8 
aa) 


‘qeoy Sif to sauseo efodw edt beanade oF 
. | as ae 
mort Sqev asedited hed ed {1 teqe 82 nokaks 


~ 


he 

sven bisow es 4a fivtD ee al noltaqioliy 1 ov, 

; a ae + 

svar Sfioow bas eneom Bagitems oft xd betantogat , 

‘ : 4 " " 

if] ~ .agaltiaw old to tedtem toetdse eigen 

1 a 

foivis¢ avivsos 2o Yoatte sxe -to otentice ova 

‘sonatqeces dtiw seem yLbied nao Tawi 
a 

vatnoe esoflo yaa tant iiaties taomis gt th Utes 


* 


(laveibenm! hilnow taw to metfLetrvetam bli bios, 
rom of mevirh ylleait esw odw eae beter 


to s@snifay edt vd sgotee af agolbauor 


Tov S sew etody tadv toatl aft 298. »weneaee aol 
id 


over bio ylbetduobnay nottonttanoses So boleanen 


,0OF .Utwtat ent eaegadteq bas .,aemal gxneH a0 soothe 

sit to noites sat mort, mid doaveb ov bovree tl 
tag 2 ti -Vilst exom svredds o@ mid wollte hy 
somal, oF esiod tiguord svad Aineo gan ed? at roitag 


1) 
} ; 


a Come, 


bus tedstt j;nobsol seemat {sooeded tae 

<0 Itvio adt £a6L al hiss art cme ty bol , ye 
wi? tnehloos ne 10% eed ton oF ed bus ,t70 6 
need sven bivow estnen @*gemst oa to tetoatado @ 


to Sdgif edt ud sotsomA. meee bad ed ree ui ‘ 
Hy : “ee 


svat teven tdaim en. deerot gatmalt bna alle 
ref Ddodovaw eved tdaim ef ,alega ied to a 
-inaato bae enot to segnedo edd Ife adage: 
vet J4oyto ed ,réw sit to seolo edt 28 Raned me 
so [low 88 Yootdus at tetfevell naoirema tae: 


os 
eA } » 
» 


Pe) ee 
consciousness a fuller understanding of the moral 

values of the struggle, it might have effected a 

change in him, but as James failed to react to the 

more definite moral issues of the reconstruction 

period, it would not be safe to assume that the war 
would have that result. 

There were two incidents of major importance 
around which all the moral issues of the war were 
centered, and James failed to see the moral side of 
either spectacle. The one was Abraham Lincoln's 
death, and the other was Andrew Johnson's administration 
and the unsuccessful attempt to impeach hin. 

Whem Andrew Johnson succeeded to the Presidency 
on the death of Abraham Lincoln, April 15, 1865, he 
ebdeavored in the administration of his office to re- 
construct the Union on the lines laid down by Lincoln. 
He imposed three conditions on the Confederate States 
with which they must comply before they should be en- 
titled to representation in Congress, the repeal of 
their ordinances of secession, the abolition of slavery 


and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the 


oe 
iy 
| 
4 
| 
7 
| 
1 
a 
f 
{ ; 
' 


t stoted ylqmoo team vert dolde wee 
tel x 
« ye . 
xd ioivavnesetcer of bold | = 
_- a es 
: ‘f , rn oe 4 .s Te 9 ee 
& estab A st Ss £2 88 SNaH LD TO eee : 


eee, | Se ee i 
=? one . alt fia ‘ in 
Oy a is 
om | . h : 
‘ 7 eon i , as 
1 } 
Py - 
od oa ~ ~~ ll 
‘ 

4 | + 4 
} ’ oe: a ] 
i H ¥ | aM i q 
rir ‘i 

: “ ’ 2 5 OD 

~ 

" 5 r * a by 

¥ Pe 28'1LOM Og 

_ 

~ % oe 
: era } r oe w 
*y 
. > 4 © 
ae) 5 VRBaT 


a 
- 
£ fn % 
£ we ile solide: 
: + Ps | - 
f + Bp it peoal ba 
= ; 
3 20 ‘edT Oeloavos 
~ g a ¢ 
™ ehinialieb Pere 
THz 8 ronvyoO eng 
1 a a # fh 
7 : \ > ~¢% =e > r 7 . 
Iq Jf IJ128900N8RN Bay 
~~ 
‘ 
P oui 4 t ‘ “ 
~s F peersy Mer 
? v , fe > oft a 
. - ++ a a avs 


. o ow Tt {. 
; , : ne A iid 
: -T -_, 
bs InMo serves bead FE 
4 “ wel oleae HOGO [ak 8h 


i 


: 
3 


oti rtd d and Gani wh? deena. ace 
Me MSOC Ls SAT £0 me ifgoba. oy Bie 
a .e 
1 . ~ i ‘ 


= 60. 4 
repudiation of their State debts incurred in the war. 
When these conditions were complied with, Johnson 
claimed that the Southern States were entitled to rep- 
resentation in Congress. But Congress ignored the 
moral obligation to allow the Southern States represen- 
tation in accordance with the program originated by 
Lincoln and made various other restrictions upon the 
readmission of the representatives. It was on this 
moral issue, whether the United States government had 
not committed itself to the readmission of the Southern 
States, that Johnson split with Congress. 

Throughout his administration from this time on 
Johnson was at swords points with Congress, which had a 
two-thirds Republican majority and was therefore able to 
override his veto. But Congress was not satisfied 
with this power. Under the leadership of the unscrup- 
ulous Thaddeus Stevens the House of Representatives 
arranged a plot to bring Johnson within the power of 
Congress and get rid of him once for all. It passed 
a law restricting the right of the President to demand 
the resignation of his Cabinet members. Johnson wished 


to test the constitutionality of this law; so he dismissed 


, 
-& 
f 
’ 
~ 2 a om F ‘ey * 
2 i, Med. - avg ern 
fi \ 
% 7 tn rth / eOd oy 
| 
- i on 0! <ebr0 ; 
4 
| Petr IeVeTG 
+ 
oe ofl 
obese) i esa a W 6 7 
, * . 4 + io a 
: *. f CVA Mla L¢ 4 ~ wv 
* » « ’ — 
TT oft Io SHyle OF sanitdol 


” i ae a ‘ . Pu f a» % ~~ SY 
ni -@1sdaiem Jontldsd sid to Moly 
a 7 ws} oases 4 dy me Swe. " 

a7 to yelifanoliotL? BOD . 


es 


- 61 - 
Stanton, the Secretary of War, and appointed General 
Grant in his place. Thereupon Stevens forced through 
the House of Representatives a resolution impeaching 
Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanors. 

The fact that Johnson's impeachment was a mere 
political subterfuge without any basis of right was a 
matter of comnon knowledge. He was entirely within 
his rights in doing the only thing which could have 
brought the quastion of the constitutionality of the 
Tenure of Office law before the Supreme Court. But 
the opposition to Johmson was not moral; it was based 
upon two things, political expediency on the one hand 
and aestheticism on the other. 

Aside from the fact that Johnson was an entire- 
ly honest man, a fact instantly apparent to a student 
of the political events of his baker sg would be hard 
to find any man in public life at the time of the Civil 
War less fitted to fill the office of President. Con- 


trasted with the calm forcefulness of Lincoln, Johnson's 


1. The history of this period may be found in detail 
in James Ford Rhodes's History of the United States 
from the Compromise of I850 fo the Final Restoration 
) ome xule a e@ 0ou n : Vols. 

WV. Y., Macmillan. Volumes V and VI are given over to 


the Johnson administration. 


i. ae : 


. > ° _u 


i 
b 
. . 


— 


Ta a 


Fr 


Leterme eens aor ean iatnadeaasdye + enkier 


te Tl ‘ XK 
i had a is 
° ) A) 2 fi - i € 
ia 
' */ 
! 
i; 
’ 
f > ay * 
q re 
; J f 


. ) if 
t+ Be e! ‘Tree ry ot 
i y : b: 
a 
: d \ on ‘ 
rey hs 4 <eT dvs Laokd {oo 
aary ri . Ix Vili MOrwNo Go 


 ) of 4 
. i r=. iO Me 
i 
’ . : 09 0, ye Oe 
0 & hive Bore 
+ 
% Oar ea ¢: 
s *~ HM ‘ . a 4, 3% 
wa 4 sf) , pee ot % 
oltto ed? SLIt of 
. 4 
r " . oy * avy Oe , os ~ ’ 
~ ‘ na ’ mi 4 Aw oS bi ® 8 & & 
retin einen dee 2 ore ene SENOS — 
i 
4 - ne’ Bom hae o = af # » 4 
‘at holteq ald to Grotat 
, ee ti An f om! 
% Lo yroteth e'aebodh bro w BS 
is is Seared der aeons . r r 
i oF SOR. to satmorxo 000 oft ae 
a "ante ro ee arene ri a Ya : 
re ra £39 = ct te y- mS: 
i oe 4 42 ba eh NUG Oliv . ¥ 1H m=. 


AF Aa NN BH Cet eS 


80m WS] Lov BLL, ee 
molt eh nbs 8 a0 at 


g > ae : re 


ly Bne y 
vo en: 


rae ge 
hotheaded utterances, his complete lack of taste and 

a sense of propriety, his habits of intemperance, even 
his personal appearance shocked the nation deeply. 

It was on the aesthetic side that Johnson made 
himself repugnant to the nation. It was not what he 
did but the way he did things that made him objectionable. 
When Thaddeus Stevens and the more radical Republicans 
attacked him for his policy of reconstruction, Johnson 
could have held the support of all the more moderate 
Republicans if he had maintained a dignified silence. 
Instead he gave utterance to angry remarks of the 
gravest impropriety and possible danger. 

At the end of the term of Congress in the 
summer of 1866 Johnson and Congress took their quarrel 
to the country. The next two weeks, from August 28 
to September 12, 1866, presented to the citizens of 
the United States an umparalleled sight, the spectacle 
of the Chief Executive traveling from one city to another 
accompanied by a disorder]ly rabble of fellow-drunkards 
alobbering forth between hiccoughs vituperative abuses 
to shouting and hooting mobs who drowned his speeches 


with insults and contumelious abuse. "He alluded to 


— 


ai 


o-oo 


<a teen 
a ee = 


A. 
ia 


— 


—T - 7 a Ae 
: silat aetna 


wh - 
an | Ae es 
cs ; 
1 mh 
4 
‘ 
f 
4 
t act yf 
j . 
. e, fy “ 
- ob wt we ri ; 
‘ 
4 
baal ai ‘o< 
“ 
tal F 
7 _ 
; 
” d vat 
: 1 sis 
_ i id 
' tSao 
4 
i 
- 
* 
PT y hy . P 
- { ‘ 
oo) —" Say 
‘ a vi J ‘ rs 
; © 
i ‘et : 
PP } - P f = = 
P te = 5 h4 F ©: 
1 
7 1A he b, J a 3° 
* Ad oer - ; 
“ , DWAR @ . ‘x 


fs: 2500 oo 


 .F. , * 
a SR y 


uolioond baa. Hit. tey 


| Seg 
; 
an 
i 
a 4 
\ os 
H 
Aconsteds 
q 


‘ 
+m be - 
ta petaté 
, v anit . 
a 3s ‘i , 
€ if ——er 
ae, eee 


nexseqqe Lampe 


: a ® 
fot, ASRE > 


oaniiot Baal & 
mm . 
M ae eee 


’ 


4 
x ) 2. 7 ne a - 3 “ md tly 8 
f iP 


= a 
Christ, Judas, Moses, Thaddeus Stevens, Wendell Phillips, 
and Charles Sumner, in a manner which would have been 
blasphemous and vituperative even in a stump keg 
No such Presidential progress had ever been known. The 
people, who demanded dignity above all things in their 
President, stood aghast at the sight; and the demand 
was raised for the removal upon any pretext whatsoever 
of a President who so shocked the aesthetic sensibilities 
of the citizens. 

It was this stumping tour, known as Johnson's 
"swinging around the circle” from a phrase reiterated 
in each of the speeches, which led directly to Stevens's 
arranging the impeachment proceedings. The tour 
itself was characterized in the articles of impeachment 
as a "high ai bene Johnson had made himself utterly 
disgusting to the aesthetic sense of the nation. A 
large part of the approval aroused by the obviously 
unjust proceedings of impeachment was an example of 


pure aestheticism in politics. 


ke Rhodes. Val« NV. ps 619. 


2- The Nation said of it: "Probably no orator of ancient 
or modern times ever accomplished as much by a fortnightlts 
Speaking as Mr. Johnson has done.” September 27, 1866. 


1s ¢n0g0k » &3 
- Pad 
{ il ed MJ : Tol 
- 7 » © 
BOVIS ’ 


r ‘a 
we i 

" ~~ WE 4 
‘ Py 
. ‘ 
=~ — -_ 

e 0 ert 

~ & wha 


a ‘ ; 
. RY) {i 
aoe! 
3 
ae ' : 4 if. oa O* “"* ft. noe h 
; : Fc y s 
\ e - eS | hae BL \ 18 Aq m ght 
' we ee re ie 4 
, ea f ,SCLA038 Wo Sfig +. O88 ft. 
. = » s 


« - Ms “ 
P ’ ey — ' P ‘ “ 
. vD6miios 8 rent ens nae eh 
{ “a 


7) 


P y * - ‘ 
a j % } a , tw 4 ~ 
Lc (tf DYOSLTOTOSIBAS ean ‘treat 
a 
~ 
' haart : 7 : orn 
: iit OL Oi c s Bo 
\ - a 
v ‘ 4 i} x By © hi 
j .* 
; iow vo 4 wITCL 0 BR 


* ' @Bc0ltilog mat 1 selolveitte 


f 
. 


ee Se oe 


a oe 
The assasination of Lincoln and the impeachment 
trial of Johnson were moral crises in the life of the 
nation. Let us see how James reacted to them. First 
there is the tragedy of Lincoln's death. 
"fhe streets were restless, the meeting of the 


seasons couldn't be but inordinately so, and one's own 


poor pulses matche@----at the supreme pitch of that fusion, 


for instance, which condensed itself to blackness round- 
about the dawn of April I5th: I was fairly to go in 
shame of its being my birthday. These would have 
been hours of the streets if none others had been---- 
when the huge general gasp filled them like a great 
earth-shudder and people's eyes met people’*s eyes with- 
out the vulgarity of speech.---The collective sense of 
what had occurred was of a sadness too noble not to 
somehow inspire, and it was truly in the air.that, 
whatever we had as a nation produced or failed to 
produce, we could at least gather round this perfection 
of a classic woe." 

Add to this purely aesthetic appreciation of 


a sensation, the following reaction to Andrew Johnson. 


1. James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother; N. Y.; 


Charles Scribmer's Sons, 1914. p. 430. 


> sanlasbeie See ee a ~ ~ 
al = © aa it ° . v « 
' 
: J 
° 
- ae 
Nf : an y 
4a ~ * Phe ao eAT : 
‘ Ne 
. é p 
Poe es _ “Ae ws 
f : AAS 5 
\ Fah 
DT Cn & 
~ 
‘ rp 
3 ) ) 


ipyer 


Go? © LY Tria 


; 
\ n ; - " —— oh 7 ~ aa ; r £ 
: J 4 rori< ; Fe@sei fa bhbines 1B 

pf we ; f 7 -- 
g ".e0w olssa ro 
. g ‘ L ‘4 i 

. SIUGS OL1F0076G08 LO q eidt of BDA ' 

. | Fe 

| DNA OF NObtosex goiwollot eAT aye 


me A OE A AT AT RRS me a peed 


. y a 
° : e a cw [2] . y - 
(+f +h j{2OSTOTE DSS Hoe so to setok sy cael somal 
peers: ASS _— se sh ero mae 7 
Vor sq ae i@l eno B's 7: sef4 
7 mm q 
f on @ 


iS Giaincs 

"True enough, aS we were to see, the immediate 
harvest of our losg was almost too ugly to be borne---- 
for nothing more sharply comes back to me than the tune 
to which the ‘esthetic sense',---recoiled in dismay 
from the @ight of Mr. Andrew Johnson perched on the 
stricken Stet 

So strong is James's feeling of aesthetic 
disgust that he philosophizes about the probable crimes 
the people must have committed to bring such a calamity 
upon them. It is quite picturesquely after the Greek 
and Roman tradition, but scarcely convincing. 

"We had given ourselves a figure-head, and the 
figure-head sat there in its habit as it lived, and we 
were to have it in our eyes for three or four years and 
to ask ourselves in horror what monstrous thing we had 
done.----It was in vain to say that we had deliberately 
invoked the 'common' in authority and must drink the 
wine we had drawn." 

Why was it vain, and what was the difference 


between the commoner Lincoln and the commoner Johnson? 


ie dant pps 46-4571, 


: ip 

a’ 
= hot + _S A 
itlosest Memon ee 


+ a 

- an 

=e M4 af Try 09 > 
“a J : ’ 


a 
¥ 
a 
; * : 7 ’ 
i ® 
‘ ' +  Y 
y 4 a2 vwA BY 
i 
' > ¢ _— rons 
. 7 «= 
’ 
S aa 7. 
tne TE 


” we of 7 
-Owatb DA 
: s 
fs >? t 


mse Hleoonmll tenommoo ‘edt 


Bey Ape 
To James the difference lay in the fact that Lincoln's 
"nould-smashing mask" was "precious for representation, 
and above all for fine suggestional function, in a degree 
that left behind every medal we had ever played at strik- 
ee hits Johnson's profile was lost to the engraver 
because of a bulbous plebeian nose and a lower profile 
which resembled an inverted wedge of cheese. 

So far, James's aesthetic shudders were 
purely his own affair: he had not attempted to base 
on them any actions. But consider his reaction to 
the impeachment. 

"What, however, on the further view, was 
to be more refreshing than to find that there were 
excesses of the native habit which we truly couldn't 
bear? so that it was for the next two or three years 


fairly sustaining to consider that, let the reasons 


publicly given for the impeachment of the official in 
Guestion be any that would serve, the grand inward 


logic or mystic law had been that we really couldn't 
go on offering each other before the nations the con- 


sciousness of such a presence. That was at any rate 


Ll. Idem. Ppp. 431-432. 


lage on che 
TSN ha a 
f iP | 


b ily ‘aoumh ¢ 
esas Kir 
ae 


- 
i Inom 
fa Dl ‘ 
H kate 


gi 
the style of reflection to which the humiliating case 
reduced pas 

He is condemned with his own words. Nothing 
more need be said on the subject. The point of paramount 
importance to the student of James's critical standards, 
however, neve nat just at the time James was recovering 
from the aesthetic thrill of rallying round the classic 
woe he put his aestheticism first into print in his 
attack on Walt Whitman. And exactly during the period 
when Johnson was giving his best interpretation of the 
vulture perched on the stricken scene, at the time, I 
mean, when he was arousing the demand for his mmpeachment 
by his disgraceful "swinging around the circle", James 
was giving literary evidence of the fact that he had 
deserted morality entirely and chosen the high window 
of aestheticism for his only outlook on life by writing 
his aesthetic and entirely immoral appreciation of 
Mlle. de Guerin's Letters, which was printed the day 


after Johnson returned to the White House. 


Re 
Sar en 4 7 


7 


> poy he ee 


po Rad , 4 u 
F . > 

v3 em 
J 


i 
I 


= Bene 

PART II:- JAMES'S AESTHETICISM 

Henry James's aestheticism was the logical 
result of his religious and philosophical line of de- 
scent and the artistic and literary aesthetic: influ- 
ences in his early training. 

In three generations the James family went 
through that course of philosophical development which 
can be traced in a number of parallels through the de- 
velopment of thought in New England----from Puritanism 
to an intense moralism which held less of the fear of 
hell-fire, thence to Transcendentalism, mysticism, and 
finally aestheticism. The divisions are substantially 
three. The mind is first concerned chiefly with hopes 
of Heaven and fear of Hell; then it is centered on a 
rigid morality on earth; after which the idea of Hell 
dies out, transcendental ideas of universal goodness 
come in to weaken the claims of strict morality, and 
finally, with no Hell on which to base the demands of 
morality and no morality on which to base philosophy, 
adrift on a sea of doubt, the mind turns to other stand- 
ards on which to base belief and actions. It takes only 
the urge of environment to bring aestheticism into this 


line of Succession. 


hte ne eee ee wie 5 dete 


= BB» 
MELODTGNTGSA @1CHMAG - hte 

oincl. sed’ age aks teeeogen a" vomal'g 

~ob Yo eall fae tageee Limes ban wot stiot 1 
~iltnt osteitien (reread bie otesisca s 
Whinlert yftes 


‘ . ‘ 
‘iow “llnet aemel emt enéiverenss esaae 


= ' 


oifiw gnewyoléved fesidgdésolidg to esxtios 
-oh oft cavote? eoleliwiag to vedmed 4 Al 


plaevito mort- =~bas fant wol my signody 0 


we. 


+9 S802 ot? Yo sael bled Noltdw wet laxvog 


bane .glolvagm ,metlatoeSaecdses? of sonedt 


a 


cllie.teatacua eve snotatvih ed® ators 17 


seqad iw gltebio besreencs tarit a2 bole os e 


) nO hevetneo al oF med sileH $6 Seek ri 
ot 4 


(lod to seb) eft ctoidw tothe iivaae no yet 


@ 
** 


saenboog Imutevings to saebs fatnobnovenant Ws 
bmp, oak Henan tolxta Yo sittalo odd nelson oz a 

to abnameh- eft edad of dokiw no. ffeH oa, aot aN 
osolidg eead o¢ doldw ap wi Letom oa baw 

Soave odso of Baiod Sale edd ,Feneb Ya sea. 8 i 
sesat 23 -enoltes baa tolfed nend ov aka 


attt otnt. galotvedteem gattd of Saemnontyne Se eat 


- 69 - 

Henry James's grandfather, William James, was 
@ Prespyterian of the strictest eer We It affected 
him so much that in his old age he became estranged from 
two of his sons because of their defection from what he 
considered the only true eae 

Henry James, Sr., represents the second step 
in the development. Much influenced by mysticism and 


transcendentalism, he built up for himself a personal 


religion and philosophy different from all known creeds 


1. The Literayy Remains of Henry James (Sr.) Ed. William 
James. N. Y.; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1884. pp. 152-153 


Our family at all events perfectly illustrated this common 
vice of contented isolation. Like all other families of 
the land it gave no sign of a spontaneous religious cul- 
ture, or of affections touched to the dimensions of uni- 
versal man. In fact, religious truth at that day, as 

it seems to me, was at the very lowest ebb of formal 
remorseless dogmatism it had ever reached, and offered 
nothing whatever to conciliate the enmity of thse unwilling 
hearts. When I remember the clergy who used to frequent 
my father's house, which offered the freest hospitality 

to any number of the cloth, and recall the tone of the 
religious world generally with which I was familiar, I 
find my memory is charged with absolutely no incident 
either of manners or of conversation which would ever 

lead me to suppose that religion was anything more to 

its votaries than a higher prudence---. 


2. The Letters of William James, Edited by his son. Boston; 
Atlantic Monthly Press; 1920. p. 4. Theological differences 
estranged him from two of his sons,---William and Hanry,--- 
and though the old man became reconciled to one of them 

a few days before his death, he left a will which would 
have cut them both off with small annuities if its 
alaborate provisions had been sustained by the Gourt. 


> rr © fe 
: 2 - A er a ee ee ore . ~— ime 
i 
7 
f 
{ | 
| 
} 
i ea 
. : : , 
: " lats 3 ‘aemal vues 


\} ‘bath Boevolsta et? to nolisayge a 
# at: 
tae emaced sif-ene Sfo ait oi Fae doumt 98 i 

thett 26 sansoed anod aii he 


Ai fet ons: rino ed? hte! 


- 
. = 
es! | “a? eRnyoLOre iv ¢ 


7 
e 1 


el =e) + o «LS ~ SOiIHS ined + 


7h 


2 we vitnd of ,metiagnebee 


tr; 
pe 
s 

F 


ct ¢nevettis giogonotine’ Bam ro 


a - ne oe a art eae 


freed Sp LL BOS 2 63] Oe 
RAT. : ai mit’ cin oA ‘taaelt ey a Y a. f 
foelred etanove Ife ge orb i st wh 
Motfalosl betoetned § ty 
. ShOGe 2 To hele OW eyes’ eP Be Bian: 
/ fh ed? oF betowet eavitastts to 30) ee , 
es XJ olei ler .toat al F ao | 
raowolL |Ytev edit Ih aw . om oF 2008 
ol Teve bad ¥r mai tempod- seek 
to ytinwe od? eteallionos of tevetatwe ? 
cw waxelo env ted tiem | sedW arta 
it ent betretto ds iidw ,¢éesod 5 teneaieme 
3 t hno ,Atolo eae to codmin ae 
; Pky loldw diie ny plas bhiaow e@n6 . 
) on [letuionds Adiw begtadte et ycoment my 
TB (sow doltw solteetevnon ¥6 19 SYentianm to Yel 
iilyas gew molyilet sad? esoqaya oF Db 
-~-“ooneboig tedald « sade a0ltavorrs 


Rares Pema 
- 
. 
ak. 


al 


4 . 


oe 3 : . “P| > #840) A ber iba sas mel i iEe to gzested 
ii isone tTelTlb Iseolnol omit oh q -OGeL 3 Bao 1 Vidvaos 6 
~~~, ¢%0GH bra wall[ CiW--- saga ale to. owd @ort mid Senne 
ano of heltogopen emaced aan bio edd ay von 
doldw Iftw se ttel ef »tteeb ate etoted ayab wel 
ust T!- selvisene {fame dtiw- tte dtod meds tne H 
| ‘5000 edt qd bentevane. sed hat snotelvorg ste 


Yay 


e/a 

but based to a large degree on ideas gleaned from his 
correspondence with Ralph Waldo Emerson and from his 
deep studies of the writings of Swedenborg. He made 
no attempt to urge his views on his seal result, 
perhaps, of the unpleasant recollection of the contin- 
ual attempts of his father to force Presbyterianism 

on him, and Henry and William grew up without the 
slightest religious See a the occasional 
partial explanations drawn from their father by direct 


questions. 


1. James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother; N. Y.; 
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914. pp. 159-160. Nothing 
could have exceeded at the same time our general sense 
----for our good fortune in never having been, even 
when most helpless, dragged by any approach to a faint 
jerk over the threshold of the inhabitable temple. (of 
his father's faith) It stood there in the center of our 
family life, into which its doors of fine austere bronze 
Opened straight; we passed and repassed them when we 
didn't more consciously go round and behind; we took 

for granted vague grand things within, but we never 
paused to peer or penetrate, and none the less never 

has the so natural and wistful, perhaps even the so 
properly resentful, "Oh I say, do look in a moment for 
manners if for nothing else!" called after us as we went. 


2. Idem. p- 170. ---no directness of experience ever 
stirred for me; it being the case in the first place 
that I scarce remember, as to all our young time, the 
crossing of our threshold of any faint shade of an 
ecclesiastical presence, or the lightest encounter with 
any such elsewhere---. We knew in truth nothing what- 
ever about them---and they remained for us---such 
creatures of pure hearsay that when in my late teens, 
and in particular after my twentieth year, I began to 
see them portrayed by George Eliot and Anthony Trollope 


the effect was the disclosure of a new and romantic 
species. 


i 


bs — ‘. 
o im TT) eetbuge gee ; 
aC. 


~ 7 


| | m0 AWOLY oc epi oF Samer 
7 1 ‘ 4 ‘ : : me ry 
b> Paid ; i q 


q os 

q 
Wy 
ff 
Me 
if \ 
: ’ ; * 
; 5 
4 

f 

ou a 


7 P : 
} aged 
; mn A Uieo'! 
" nf « 
! 7 4 ot 
q tis linw ic 
ii “: 
q 8B Ww 4 
¢ : i } 4 
d 4 ri eo 2 
{ ok ® : 
r Tenoq 1 
i ; ’ ahs t +. & 
| : 0? £8; 
ff ; : Fae - 
4q . teale anidton « 
' 
yy ae an 
i é we 
i dol jo 
/ ‘ iuPemoOT € 
: f 4 amy “ Tr ~ 
‘ we ehiv  & IO =) 


t | ; +3 } ty i , oon ae “y ta re 
i , es Oe ,---etodweere’ 
| Sea? ‘ mire tons by por 4 iwod ‘a ca 
a ha ‘ we ; von ¥ ar edt ow ‘a T 


a: 


{ : 5 + ™ e 4 “a << -_. 
; Mess » LOWS vo tts yal; i p 
: Be at. sat t et wr 
A . A ave “i e Lad 
£ > * 2 t . 


a-.o 


2 Wa 


Not only did Henry James learn nothing of his 
father's religion, which was to him a closed temple into 
which he never ventured, but he was kept free from all 
religious contact, the bad impression made upon Henry 
James, Sr-., by the "number of the cloth" who were con- 
stantly enjoying the hospitality of his father's house 
keeping him from offering a similar religious contact 
to his sons. The result was that, although he gained 
from his father a basis of morality which is shown in 
his earliest essays, he was entirely unreligious, even 
somewhat bored by the consideration of abstract ideas 
of any sort. Since this morality had no firm found- 
ation of religious principles to make its mandates 
peremptory, it is not surprising that it did not with- 
Stand the test of the Johnson spectacle, towards which 
all his early training urged him to react aesthetically. 
In 1855 the James family went abroad, to spend 
four years travelling about over Europe, stopping in 
Switzerland, Germany, and France. Their ostensible 
purpose was to give the boys, William, Henry (then twelve 


years old), and Wilky, the advantage of Swiss education. 


It is characteristic of the family that they spent sev- 


gnioqos 


* > <> 
Lgnaevao 


iD @ 


(28g 


fad? 


roiiminm « ime 23a mots ot te 


« SY «2 


sone) YineE bib lag tom. 
if OF caw do Lele »notyifer. 0 
oii. titd Seditaey & “ne 
seigms Bad e:f? , 1399809 ase 
ety to teduox” of? ed 8 


viitas | weog bag and otae % , 


ast 9 iW Sise » exit _ ane a i 


ian of eslalonity avotaller & i! 
it gntetzaize ton af 92 71090 
Toeye nogadey “ek? To teed ‘ 
of mid Sespiy antabetd wasep, y 
how “q 


ast? 
ecard 


! oe 
tilesom to aiesag.a r9dtat as 
rae 
evitne Saw ed ,eyesse sae a . 
eg 
‘2 ‘i 
oi tereblen 56 etl? ¢d bexod 3 


eye 7 
ds 


ytif{srom sidd santé a6 7" 


yitwst semet ede eaar at 
1svo tHods gai iovart 8180Y" 


ePon|atl DAS ,~oentTed » bee La) 


cimeH ,meliliW ,eyod eft evig of saw ome 
to eyetsevbe oft ,yatlP bao (ones 
vont vadt yLimat edd to obtetresoarade 


iS eel es oo ee 


eae y es 

eral years wandering about before actually getting to 
the Swiss schools at all. William James followed a 
course in the Academy, while Henry spent perhaps the 
most unpleasant months of his existence trying to 
master the first rudiments of mathematics in the Insti- 
tution Rochette, a preparatory school which specialized 
in scientific training. In @ short time Henry was 
given up as hopeless, and the rest of his time in 
EKurppe was spent in amassing impressions. 

He developed a theory of impressions, a sort 
of creed by which he justified his complete absorption 
in the search. "To feel a unity, a character and tone 
in one's impressions, to feel them related and all 
harmoniously colored, that was positively to face the 
aesthetic, the creative, even, quite wondrously, the 
critical life and almost on the spot to commence author." 
Again, he says, “Impressions were not merely all right 
but were the dearest things in the hes witos And,"Never 
did I quote strike off, I think, that impressions might 
themselves be shossauan® 
1. Notes of a Son and Brother; pp. 24-25. 
Bre A EWier<Diew-2O 
3. Idem. p. 26. 


a 


i- 


er net ot A ee an 6 tt as ame yh ma 


f 


* . od 


idgix ffs ¢lerem ton otew eno hbasexeml? -&7a8 ef 4] 
tf 


xovoll", Bad 


siitten ¢iladtoa etoled thede sriasbaaw 
¢ hawolfot% 2 fry at mals fin 


~ 8Y « 


gow yYinek amly stows se «Al 


st emit als to tee% of? has canteqos aa 
-enotesergmt galuvema nt caege 


: Sno laeerqm! 


J 


AOltgiTosde evel gqmiod s 
oy bre yetdatado s Chin a {ee3 of" slo 

[is bane Dberatex wot toe 0? ,enotaadsembie 
eit eost o¢ etevivisog eaw tad? - boro los wile 


of? ,ylegotboow stingy . neve ,0vitzeao edt +f 


‘3ic anolssexqmt ted? ,lnidt I, to edings stomp | 
PS . 


OF ee ee te 


ot 


oti ta 
eit aqadieq tneqs gumel e hime wetadh 
ot gnigx? conete ie ame ‘to atdeson 
Penk ea? xt sottenetenn to son 0i2 bin saulk 
bos tt 


2iseqa doldw [eons WARP OT OL OTE Pi ord 


-grintart S 


~ 


a ; 
ig 


to Eroedt a Seyoleved on * 


fief 


ha 


— 
helticas! ad Aoldw cd B 


‘US #onommoo oF toga ent ao tecula Baa tht 
".5ftow oft al saad? Jasuseb ene 


" eometoe od pevieg 


shy “7 
f Sa mie hee Ps 


* 


_ 


a) 


Py 


iw 


, ey 


‘ : : 


is ve 


ih Bick a 

Four of the most fromative and impressionable 
years of his life were given up to "tasting" different 
flavors of impressions in Kurope. There was no plan 
of education; each of the boys went in for the kind of 
schooling which pleased his fancy, and emerged immediate- 
ly whenever his fancy changed. It was a singularly 
personal sort of education for Henry James. He follow- 
ed his interests wherever they led him, and his interests 
were in carrying away from each country a feeling of the 
artistic unity of its many different impressions. This 
Sort of education was peculiarly adapted to developing 
in James the artistic and aesthetic feelings which he 
was later to apply to art and finally to literature. 

The next step in his aesthetic development 
was the study of art, a study to which he was brought 
by his habit of becoming interested in whatever his 
elder brother was doing. The family was in Paris in 
1859, and it was quite characteristic in them to de- 
cide to leave the fountain-head of artistic knowledge 
and return to America in order to give William a chance 
to study art. It was, however, auite a natural step 
1. Idem. p. 62. I alone of all the family perhaps made 
bold not to say quite directly or literally that we 


went home to learn to paint. People stared or laughed 
when we said it, and I disliked their thinking us so 


5 F i a 
26 a 2 3 a 
=a. ee i Fe ey : 
' I ; i 
; a ies 


Ql ' 


a 
‘ 


re) 
— 
j ' . 
2S : 
. 
‘ . 
, a. Se . 5 al rl 
Awana ‘ o re 
retat geinios > tided alg 
wes i 
_ 
. : ) Ji 
* > = es 
~ «+! 
- > » a4 
ads ‘ ** 
i 
f gi ny 
¢ iM 2 aie TNs te ie SOARS 
TAs « e 
g ‘ai . 55 .% 
" aokietaieiameniadiicnetionant ined 
* 
7 
- 
‘ re 
. teh 4 - - OOS - 
. 
Yt - : 
io wifvoetisb edhe 
an = > [_ a>  ¥ ae 
’ 


b a : a : 
Lyoe% stitlaq of atael 


i+ at al & Pa 5 _- « ’ ror ey 

- . ee | he SHA, Oz 5 . Ge 4 bs Be aw Pia Sit" 
L Sik@ a ? ' oe i i 

a a an ee 


| EIT 
arr very yar ee ; 


, 
ay . [ : Blan 


= WAS 


for it brought William and Henry under the tuition of 


William Hunt, who was as Parisian in his painting as 
ih 
anyone in Paris and was besides a friend of the family. 


Henry James spent the next few months in the 
studio of William Hunt dabbling in art and spending 
his spare hours in a perusal of the Revue des Deux 
Mondes. No very great attempt was made to make an 
artist of him; he was simply allowed to wander about 
the studio, making occasional sketches of plaster 
models, and absorbing artistic impressions. These 
impressions were less of art than of the artistic life 
in general and of artists. He developed an interest 
in the life of the artist which was reflected in his 


early stories about artists and artistic studies. For 
2 
William Hunt himself he had a great admiration. 


1. Idem. p- 61. The particular ground for our defection 
which 1 obscurely pronounced mistaken, was that since 
William was to embrace the artistic career---our return 
to America would place him in prompt and happy relation 
to William Hunt, then the most original of our painters 
as well as one of the most original and delightful of 
men.---But never surely has so odd a motive operated 
for a break with the spell of Paris. 


2. Idem. p- 83. It was impossible to me at that time 
not so to admire him that his just being to such an 
extent, as from top to toe and in every accent and 
motion, the living and communication Artist, made the 
issue, with his presence, quite cease to be of how one 
got on or fell short, and become instead a mere self- 
sacrificing vision of the picturesque itself, the con- 
stituted picturesque or treated "Subject", in effic- 
ient figure, personal form, vivid human style. 


~ aaa eal ded aetias O a 


s bee 


tig? edt tehow zroeH bas mel llie eh 


H 
faiaq ald mk geatatva® os asy oxdve suite 
| " ¥i¢Qune4 a7 “oo Soste?t & sebileed aad bag sina) 
: 
nom wet Sai en Poses abut: erat 
(oaeqs bre 31s sh SERGdab JAee mettle & 
xuePl seb spvek al¢ Yo feetisg a ni ewod 649 
_ — a ad . ma r 
| fa eat oF bat agaw fawmetvs leery citev oy t 
f fi ay 
iioda tohsew ot bewolle yiqmie ew et Sane 
' tovcas +o asdotods Lenotabeoo alien obey a 
{ ; ; 
} eye" -enolegergai old eltta galdweds: bia, 

. : ; ae oy 
vt) ‘Sivse em? To madd ta To Seer exew ae ’ 
i : Bt 
3 vwjol ga 5 oleveb ad <Stetixae to. bis ca * ‘. 

i ¥ ~ a 
ahi il bevoolte? aan tio iciw taltta et? to Es 5 ) 
{ ; . «80i5a%e oltalves ban ataltra tude sel o 
| | iabs rn s had ed pacha 

iolvoeted tuo YOt Bape tm telvolitar edT +56 =. 
conte tadd paw tedeta tm Seswmonote yiewedsdo | 
! nwdet 1W0---TeetDo itveltza eft esaidme of agw 
aclto<ex Yayed ons tqmotg nt mbt eoaly bloow sole 
| Teinle, to to Leatgizo tenom ef? Hede sank nat t 
io Lpttaigifeh hes fantgizo tepm eft ke ens es fj f 
Soteteqo evisom's Sho o@ gad _leie teven seen 
alvas to [leqn edd dale a 
ri? gatt Ja om ot aldigeougsl een 20 88 
ie dove of gaied teuf eld tadt oie otimhan 7 
| 528 toe06s yteve @) Bea’ god of gov wort Ba. 
odd ebam ,éet¢ta ool¢aolmuemoe baa galvi. bun 
so wod to ed of emeso, sting aoingee ) 
-i{68 e499 @ beetsal emqoed bas wh 
=n 106 ea? ,tilestt ou paerstolg ong’ are AG Bera: 
| itte al .  toetdva" botsext TO eae 
| .olyts camod biviv’ | ato 
i 
| t t 


Pe ae 

Artistic and literary influences blended 
imperceptibly together in a kind of aesthetic unity 
which left no break between the two as James turned 
his attention from art to literature. His months 
of drawing in the studio of William Hunt gave him 
a feeling for art and an interest in the artist as 
@ subject which was easily turned into material for 
his literary creations. James says of this trans- 
ition from art to literature after he had discovered 
that he could never be more than a very mediocre artist, 
"Therefore if somewhat later on I could still so fondly 
hang about in that air of production (in the studio) 
--~--it was altogether in the form of mere helpless 
admirer and inhaler, led captive in part by the dawn- 
ing perception that the arts were all essentially one 
and that even with canvas and brush whisked out of my 
grasp I still needn't feel disinherited."” 

This idea of the unity of the arts he owed 
to Ruskin, the influence of whose Modern Painters 
James received both at first and second hand, through 
reading, and through association with Charles Eliot 


Norton. Indeed it may easily be shown that James was 


1. Idem. p. 97. 


ee 


completely saturated with Ruskin and that his develop- 
ment in aesthetic ideas was largely due to his famil- 
larity with Ruskin's ideas. Certain descriptive 


passages in Travelling Companions, a story James pub- 
lished in The Atlantic Monthly in November and December 
of 1870, are exactly in the style of Ruskin's Modern 
Painters, and the subject matter of the story oe ti 


result of James's interest in artists as a type. 


1. The following two examples from Travelling Compan- 
ions will serve to show how greatly Jeneo Gas inPiscnoed 
by Modern Painters: 

Those who have rambled among the marble immen- 
sities of the summit of Milan Cathedral will hardly 
expect me to describe them. It is only when they have 
been seen as a complete concentric whole that they can 
be properly appreciated. It was not as a whole that 

I saw them; a week in Italy had assured me that I have 
not the architectural coup d'oeil. In looking bach 
on the scene into which we emerged from the stifling 
spiral of the ascent, I have chiefly a confused sense 
of an immense skyward elevation and a fierce blinding 
efflorescence of fantastic forms of marble. There, 
reared for the action of the sun, you find a vast 
marble world. The solid whiteness lies in mighty 
slabs along the iridescent slopes of nave and transept, 
like the lonely snow-fields of the higher Alps. It 
leaps and climbs and shoots and attacks the unsheltered 
blue with a keen and joyous incision. It meets the 
pitiless sun with a more than equal glow; the day 
falters, declines, expires, but the marble shines 
forever, unmelted and unintermittent. You will 

know what I mean if you have looked upward from the 
Piazza at midnight. With confounding frequency, 

too, on some uttermost point of a pinnacle, its 
plastic force explodes into satisfied rest in some 
perfect flower of a figure. A myriad carven statues, 
known only to the circling air, are poised and niched 
beyond reach of human vision, the loss of which to 


a ~ . ~ ies 
at —-, ae, way he ee ~— biie-Eh — 
x a © % > 7 
4 s 
i} 
’ t 
i 
i 
} 
. 
<2 ‘ 


— * ¢ 
. 
. 
( 
if 
- 
* 
. 
f 
| 
J , 
q wird 
a ; 
. ; UNG 
- 
‘ i ae o 
: 
‘ , 
z . ee sal J ud 4 
M 
P) 1 ( 
+ 
4 ; ’ or ty 
s " 
r * € +? 
' id 
’ P, 
, tay “ 
.. J ee ts | 
/ » 4G, 
- , we 
‘ bad 
‘ a 
> 
3 + P 4 
- . 
. ‘ - , 
ee a 
“ 
: ' af wf 
} 5 ‘ * vt ‘nd 
oy - ’ 
i : he / ‘ 
‘ ; or 
| “ASS 
‘vw AT 
5 ~ 4 
- iz ne ’ 
y= aie 4 ‘ ‘v ‘ie - oD 


: oF FI ui Ling re F 2) Sotlenu. 
| of ey soy ti neem I. ta 
; Pat i ee 4 rt r] fis bak m wy ‘9 : 
; : by a Dy : . oa ger Lim te aa 
+! yak Mn oO Tas 4 308 T8770. sroe ; 10 
a 3 OFNL Beholaqxe sotot. 5; 

‘ > errr avr FP - o » aa ais bn 

ried + oo ' 6 a rewolt to 
~ ‘ . .” ia ; _ 


slow ta, i 2 BAtiorlg ony. 
‘ re 


= oy 

John La Farge was an influence both artistic 
and literary which followed after, and was for some 
time concomitant with the influence of William Hunt. 
He was the other interesting person at Newport. An 
artist and a very well educated man, he brought the 
intensity of his interest in things artistic and lit- 
erary to bear upon Henry James so that for some time 


the whole course of James's reading was determined by 


Note cont'd.---mortal eyes is, I suppose, the gain of 
the Qhurch and the Lord. Among all the jewelled 
Shrines and overwrought tabernacles of Italy, I have 
Seen no Such magnificent waste of labor, no such glo- 
rious synthesis of cunning secrets. AS you wander, 
sweating and blinking, over the changing levels of the 
edifice, your eye catches at a hundred points the 
little profile of a little saint, looking out into 

the dizzy air, a pair of folded hands praying to the 
bright immediate heavens, a sandalled monkish foot 
planted on the edge of the white abyss. And then, 
beside this mighty world of the great Cathedral.itself, 
you possess a view of all green Lombardy,----vast, 
lazy Lombardy, resting from its Alpine upheavals. 


Within the church, the deep brown shadow- 
masses, the thick-tinted air, the gorgeous composite 
darkness, reigned in richer, quainter, more fantastic 
gloom than my feeble pen can reproduce the likeness of. 
From those rude concavities of the dome and semi-dome, 
where the multitudinous facets of pictorial mosaic 
shimmer and twinkle in their own dull brightness; from 
the vast antiquity of innumerable marbles, incrusting 
the walls in roughly mating slabs, cracked and polish- 
ed and triple-tinted with eternal service; from the 
wavy carpet of compacted stone, where a thousand once- 
lighted fragments glimmer through the long attrition 
of idle feet and devoted knees; from sombre gold and 
mellow alabaster, from porphry and malachite, from 
long dead crystal and the sparkle of undying lamps,--- 
there proceeds a dense rich atmosphere of splendor 
and sanctity which transports the half-stupefied trav- 
eller to the age of a simpler and more awful faith. 


Te PS ae ree ee ae 


i ry t oars 


’ 


~ 
‘ 
“ 
4 
4 
“g 
:} 
we .% 
, aie Pr) ocun 
« sr - 
’ r¢ os od? ne 
i 4 adi fg { 
me ; ; tre 1 Lv m 
463 om oe 
- yy ° ‘ rl 
- y - yt ._o8 
‘ 4 ~ Me - rs ] 
a f ; 3 ~Jit ; 0. 
} : ) , Teao, ni beanies 
. sw , a 
‘2c be OP \ i a 
; . i+ y “ant. -b fee 
| ) edt to eebtivacnoe ebas a 
re part ae m ne he Ce & od 
‘ J ‘4 Br. GUC aa de a Ts By ting éa¢ 
rf wf a+ mi ps {she a y | oa 
* 4 b4A YW «+ & = a SAMS Vi ? $:. 
: wonl to ytis 
: 3 gaizem vldusot 
4 4 ro hp | Siw betnals<e 
"7 “yy £ ‘ 
‘ N Wo ¥ 0.811 MOO 
J i rt ean 
Ww £439 prreyre hS 44 ‘etnex 
3 ’ ; ; , = y A /Ot0 vob 
ag , . w og of tog mort ce 
7 = 405 Fer! ‘ “AL aWwYy hu a . ft] 


p : “ ss eae SS on’ ane fare 
Pe tae a fois eben ; mee Er 118 

, ; iw - thor a a8 pala’ 
74 “to eae etd ? 98 tefl. 


if 


' 


= Bins 
him. James says of him, "He was really an artistic, 
an esthetic nature of wondrous homogeneity; one was 

to have known in the future many an unfolding that 
went with a larger ease and a shrewder economy, but 
never to have seen a subtler mind or a more generous- 


ly wasteful passion, in other words a sincerer one, 
1 
addressed to the problems of the designer and painter." 


But although his influence in the field of art 
paralleled that of William Hunt, and he probably served 
to make more strong James's interest in the artist type, 
John La Farge's influence on James was more in the field 
of literature that of art. In the first place, his was 
the guiding hand which ne James through the mazes of 


the Revue des Deux Mondes, a periodical from which at 


L. Notes of a Son and Brother; p. 91. 


2. Idem. pp- 86-87. I well recall my small anxious 
foresight as to a required, an indispensable provision 
against either assault or dearth, as if the question 
might be of standing an indefinite siege; and how a 
certain particular capacious closet in a house we were 
presently to occupy took on to my fond faney the likeness 
at once of a store of edibles, both substantial and 
succulent, and of a hoard of ammunition for the defense 
of any breach---the Revue accumtlating on its shelves 

at last in serried rows and really building up beneath 
us with its slender firm salmon-colored blocks an alter- 
native sphere of habitation.---But the point for the 
moment was that one would have pushed into that world 

of the closet, one would have wandered and stumbled 
about in it quite alone if it hadn't been that La Farge 
was somehow always in it with us. 


all 


ony KO) 
that time James was gathering nearly all his literary 
impressions. La Farge's influence on James's literary 
taste was important both in its scope and in its inten- 
sity. The following paragraph from Notes of a Son 
and Brother will show where their interests turned and 
how deep én impression La Farge made on James. 

"He had been through a Catholic college in 
Paryland, the name of which, though I am not assured 
of it now, exhaled a sort of educational elegance; but 
where and when he had so miraculously laid up his stores 
of reading and achieved his universal saturation was 
what we longest kept asking ourselves. - Many of these 
depths I couldn't pretend to sound, but it was immediate 
and appreciable that he revealed to us Browning for in- 
Stance; and this, oddly enough, long after Men and Women 
had begun (from our Paris time on, if I remember) to 
lie upon our parents’ book-table. They had not divined 
in us as yet an aptitude for that author; whose appeal 
indeed John reinforced to our eyes by the reproduction 


of a beautiful series of illustrative drawings, two or 


three of which he was never to surpass---and more than 
he was to complete his highly distinguished plan for 
the full set, not the least faded of his hundred dreams. 


Most of all he revealed to us Balzac; having so much 


to tell me of what was within that formidably-plated 


— 
Nt 
| us 
i 
= 
' 
» : 


. a 
- . oe °° 
> 
, of 
' 7. 
* 
‘ aae . +. 
4 ia Rot / 
” 
‘ 
« 
. ey 
- 
i . | 
1 4 
- _ 
. 
» “, 
Y* ° 
4 
weir 
. +. wal 
J 2 BD 
' 
> th op 
~ a" 
f on vr 
} } Fe) ; 
; " Pog 
wows 
™ ri ° OMe 
; ; 2 BY st 
> 


) Yieygid, eit eteiqmoo od 
c a ; 


d AG ud zB is Dbebel tasel ot ton toa J 


7 ,oazlag en ot bof 486 vox ed tye4 0 te ON 
L 7 hk ae i Las Prey 


= 86..= 
door, in which he all expertly and insidiously played 
the key, that to re-read even after long years the 
introductory pages of Eugenie Grandet, breathlessly 
Seized and earnestly absorbed under his instruction, 

is to see my initiator's youthful face, so irregular 

but so refined, look out at me between the lines as 
through blurred prison bars." 

In 1865 Henry James wrote his first literary 
review and sent it to Charles Eliot Norton, the editor 
of the North American neatie * The review was received 
with favor and published in the next number of the mag- 

azine, the October issue; and James was invited to 
Shady Hill to meet Charles Eliot Norton and make plans 
for future articles of the same. sort. James was im- 
mensely impressed by this invitation and the interest 
Shown in him, and the meeting of the two men marked 
the beginning of a friendship which had a large influ- 
ence on James's ; Seaeks 

1. pp- 92-93. 


2. For a full account see Note 1, p- 19. 


4. James says of it, in Notes of a Son and Brother, pp. 
405-406, "I was to grow fond of regarding as a positive 
consecration to letters that half-hour in the long library 
at Shady Hill,---for what did I do again and again, through 
all the years, but handle in plenty what I might have 
called the small change of it?" 


¥ “E 7 vy v pee 6 Bee Yee Cee 


« 0 = 
lexoth lanl Sam eli yeune Cis. ad coy ay 
207 anol tevhe. sove bapi~en oo 4 oF i 
tobmatd pimengk to ens Ge 
HO.conivest eld eh Begeeeds ee 
esti of ,sosk Lwheaey s '1otektdag. | 
en t goowd ad on he wuc”- deo!  dsaltet 
ar AOS L by elie, 
eld etoxww semmlh. ied $93f ot 5 


ioe elt ,Gsoston dolla eoivad) of) Oh, Saas 
3 
viene Baw welive ~~ ef, » >fves L380 Toms iS Le 
. —_ _—— eee , - 
t% tedusn tzeon oft al pent’ As aa 
Fy 


-ULtal egral @ Bad dotite ctnened te a Xo: sini 


ee ee 


@ xediond bna nos 2 : 
ee Yy & 8&8 aa T8330 
rE sae! ex? al sand ag ib 


ovat tigi I dade ete 
wth 


hetival enw semel dna senset redoted | 

[| stan bas sosvion JollE selaadd. teem ot 
-f aw seiiie, -Ts08 emge off to aolotias mi 
tearetat edt boa aolésczival eins Pai pence rane 


bexxeo mem owt eit? to gilteen ant tie ink ap 


<gaitiow eeeaat 


i 
9 


| a 
ef .¢ »f stow ooH thwooua £103 


ieee Soa ates ob 1 


= Si = 


Charles Eliot Norton was an aesthetic influ- 


ence almost equal to that of James's own knowledge of 
and saturation in the ideas of Ruskin. He stood for 
some time in the position of guide, philosopher, and 
friend to the young James, and there is no way of es- 
timating with any accuracy the degree of his influence. 
It is certain that this influence was great, and that 
it served to deepen the effect and broaden the appli- 
cation of James's already developed Ruskinism. Norton 
was a close friend of Ruskin's, and he had: made an 
exhaustive study of Modern Painters and applied the 
theories to all phases of criticism in the fields of 
art and literature. Ruskin wrote about him as follows: 
"And thus I became possessed of my second friend, after 
Dr. John Brown, and of my first real tutor, Charles 
Eliot Norton. In every branch of classical literature 
he was my superior, knew old English writers better than I 
---much more, old French; and had active fellowship and 
close friendship with the then really progressive lead- 
ers of thought in his own countrym Longfellow, Lowell, 
and Emerson. 

"All the sympathy and all the critical subtlety 


of his mind had been given, not only to the reading, but 


ne Ee 


Ef Fog 


ol =p Ma Lo tNece heqgoleveh ybeetiele eakey ae 
iA 8hen hed ed Sas ,2'nleenl 26 baetxtd 


a 


a] 


‘tdge Laotdh« edd fe Bos qHtaqoya edd peck 


nea —_ 


sltint elf to seumeh eft yoangoos. gm e 


-Sewollet evitos bed bas jdowes® bio, 670m 


we 


7 on Tsoe8 fA @aw notiol totig vohaung hh] 
ogdolwont nwo @"segRh. to, Jedd oF Tas 

\ pee 

wore «#4 fisank pa) aeedi agit al £ 

,tocyoselliq ,shfeg Ro Rottiagg. eff) 


toojew of al eed? Ske Saeiunk youny ede 
y es eK 7 


Lig ,Jsety sew sonop lta, Sees gate. . 
Pan 
ma ed? nehastd Baa toette en A yueb: Gt 


i‘? betiangs dae srsiniad robo to viata 
Hhielt sf? nl maloltyirs. to asdany tis ot a } 

2a Min sxodsa stotw altask | .eurdetee . 
»baeit? Bbraoo4a ca +98 boaagsaog amaned Az 
tM , tot? Leeg Janik Vat £0. ine word 
Vil [solesslo to sonatd Yieve BE. aie 


Jsed exetinw daitant Dio wend. .ol equim va 


svleseTyorg Uilaet cond eft dt iw qideineie 
Wwollelyaol meiwmioo mwe aid wt taayods 
1109 tein 


} 


iLhoet edt ot yiao tan nerds nood bast } 


=- Oo = 

to the trial and following out of the whole theory 
of Modern Painters; so that, as I said, it was a 
very real joy for him to meet me, and a very bright 
and singular one for both of be a 

The influence of Charles Eliot Norton is 
the last of those which I should class as formative 
influences, that is to say, the influences which 
were actively in operation before James had given 
written evidence of the fact that he was purely 
aesthetic in his critical theory. Later influences, 
Matthew Arnold and Walter Pater, for instance, tend 
to change the style of his aestheticism, but they do 


not figure in its origin. 


1. Ruskin, John: Praeterita;London; George Allen and 
BONS. HALO. SO NOUGs VOlaDits pps T7379. 


_ = —w 


TI a ET jt ol it 


ee eo 


ee Sen ee 


alee mal ays Srenangerene ie te at a ee mm Rg ns oem Fig 


lame J - ~ Ty. ct oe _f i fl ‘ ‘ 
0 A Le ee i ' 7 ‘ ve on i 
oi ee 


‘f2 
-_ at _ 


rs ‘S$ elotw edd to tue galweffot Aga isit? 1 f 
. | | - 
ni Si ,hhes T.ae ,tad? of jsetede som 


5 7 ’ at = 

‘d ¢iev © Ons ,sm teen of nie 16%~—<at ae 
=a =.) | 

--6H Id -ffod it ead it 
rOrTON fF salyado to soneoltat seen 
ar hy 

a tiie | doidw enont To im 


roi ond ,yna oF et dead lam 
~ ® a . Kid 

' sivol exsoted notvareqo m2. ele 
tare 
y a1 Vad? Jost ad? ta engebigerm 

Pe 

; -GrOOAT J nelfiags aid AS 9} ‘ + 

» 4 Teak tol ,etea" vezla®. Bae Slos wo 


vif 


7, 3s0 ,mfolvetwaen Gin te alyte ad? 


eh 
«itl i705 agi al OmA i 


— me ~ eS ee eee ee 


us nol tk spree’ 2 sobaoksas? ey 1278 f 
Pred “og at ae 


os ae 


CHAPTER VII 
LATER ESSAYS 


Although this study is directed chiefly toward 
a consideration of the origin of James's standards, the 
changes, and the formative influences, it will be well 
to round out the investigation by considering James's 
aestheticism as shown in certain of his later essays. 
Seldom after the time of his aesthetic reaction to 
Lincoln and Johnson did James strike a purely moral note 
in his critical essays; there was always a touch of 
aestheticism, so that we conclude that James conceived 
of conduct as aesthetically agreeable or disagreeable 
rather than as ethically right or wrong. I shall 
take up one at a time various essays, touching upon each 
decade of his life, and consider the aesthetic standpoint 
from which they were written. 

The first book of essays which James published 
was French Poets and =a aed This was published in 
1878, a year before James's study of Hawthorne appeared in 


the English Ilen of Letters series. Ezra Pound says that 


1. James, Hanry: French Poets and Novelists; London, and 
N. Y.; Macmillan and Company, 1893. 


. 
: 
. 


} Ren er lath eg, here ely pe eal Se a a = ee 


waste oltedtaes sed¢ tebienos baa ,etil aff te ef 


faiftdeq saw etd? Bfallevol ba eveot done. 


[idngy a@eney sofdwseyasae to xood Jartt ed? 


“0 Sopot gaat “Beit potitw. os ae ig 


> 7 MN a 


\ rs 
LIV #aTsazo 
SYAGEa ENTAIL 


(ey “aid Yo L2e T8090 AL Awodd ga ahaha 
\‘enen eff To emt? eft ae 
ree somet 51) sosadot sna 


owia anuw sredh paveeee taold fem 


et 
Doron seas tadt ébutenco ef tedy on ,maioks 
if As aa 

TEH5/D =O sldsoorga ~{_fiisolrediees, ae eiee 

: , 

‘BLOW to tigit Yolsoldive sa sens : 


jv AAlAoOVes ,2yse8e apoltay sald @ Ts Bo 


ottinw erew Yodd Ho 
f 
1ga. esroutwal to Varta @' comet ented eh 


ee ee yeas 


onikel ,atetlovoll bas. sz rO) AO fia a8 Eg 
: +f i ' . ayti 46 ts i - s 


iy x Ue igen PD. PT r 


BAL. a 
this book is disgustingly fll of Puritan morality. 

A very careful perusal of its contents fails to reveal 
ang of it. Indeed morality is conspicuously absent, 
almost indecently so in places. The illustrations 
given hereafter are typical of the whole book. 


Consider,for example, the sharp contrast 


between James's vulgarly stated curiosity about the 
al 


adventures of Miss Braddon which would qualify her to 
write about the race-track and his ironical but complete 
acceptance of the peccadilloes of Alfred de Musset, which 
he justified on the grounds that they resulted in good 
literature. 

"Alfred de Mussét's superfine organization, his 
ezaltations and his weaknesses, his pangs and his tears, 
his passions and his debaucheries, his intemperance and 
his idleness, his innumerable mistresses (with whatever 
pangs and miseries it may seem proper to attribute to 
them), his quarrel with a woman of genius, and the scandals, 
exposures, and recriminations that are so ungracefully 
bound up with it---all this was necessary in order that we 
should have the two or thee little volumes into which 


his best is compressed. It certainly takes a great 


1. Vide ante p.3l. 


. Ti 1 ee oe ee ee ee 
ee ee 4 te ot a a ae : : ¥ 


e D6 = 


notice to (fet ofant trsayelb ah 

¢t allal agheraos ait ta i bBUIO tery 
[anouof@egoe al Pi ipxom hgobnt 
hatte ch ent sGs0n%d ni oa tonal 
ofodw elt ae iota ate & 

$6 “$3 ioo gqusda edt’ eiawaxce to, Neb Lanes 
in lectins ‘bevage vitantloy e'a9 


aio OLoow tobiw nobbsasd esis br 8% 


iouas bextla to peofi thas bey of ‘ko , 


ae 
or codt ted? chavota, eit 70 See 


i iid ,noitarninanto eal itreqie a't@eanit ob povkiay 
,ate2e! eld bas sanad ald ,eenasaieew ait Dae 

eonarteqmetal allt ,aetredonaded efi ona 

avezadw n¢iw) gasservate oldarremy ngs ati Bese 

q 


of otudiaita o2 bi ch, noee ,an ti aoinoadm £ 
oe) 5 ’ 


‘ehabuaos oif bas ,a@sfines Te MMOOW & iw ee 
-[ietesasiaag o8 wie gad? ono itentmtroe1 bas Ee 

my Fait roto ot YTasseoen Baw eidd fLa~+«$2 ring 
fotdw otal semslor ortent come 0 ows hee | 


i footy & voted (Intetned. ae Niorttere 


; ; 4 =i o be 
hd >. 


q | soo sce sae bv 
| A + — 2» ute i ' nal 
; i ae ok Nie Aaa m ™ 


’ TRA: ae AK ag 
7 \) © Ajeet ®. i hae ql airy = 


a: ae 


deal of life to make a little art! In this case, 
however, we must remember, that little is Se ey cae 
Axee nt for the expression of a doubt as to 
the adviseableness of his choice of subjects, James 
has no condemnation for Baudelaire, and much praise 
for his artistry. Here we haye expressed again that 
appreciation of incidental charms in a thing fundament- 
ally repulsive which we noted in James's review of 
Mlles de Guerin's ee oe te The following excerpts 
from his essay will reveal the-artist's point of view. 
"His great quality was an inordinate cultiva- 
tion of the sense of the picturesque, and his care was 
for how things looked, and whether some kind of imag- 
inative amusement was not to be got out of them, much 
more than for what they meant and whither they led and 
what was their use in human life at eeu, 
"A good way to embrace Baudelaire at a glance 
is to say that he was, in his treatment of evil, exactly 


what Hawthorne was not---Hawthorne, who felt the thing 
4 


at its source, deep in the human consciousness." 


1. French Poets and Novelists; p. 30. 
2. Vide ante pp. 54-55. 
3. French Poets and Novelists;.p. 59. 


4. Idem. p.- 6l. 


ese. SP CS 


~ 


8 Or 


& 


i ene othe i Ete os a 
© ald? al i ie THe @ orem of a 
~~ 


yore ef GDRRAD tat Raper et“ ry 
20 adleasbergkee edd. yok 100K 


‘, ,soe ds8 to eogido eid te eaéaeke 
4 


bere foun bax ,ortetéhuas iot nol terme > x6 y 
261g KS SV ad OW etrh welts @ 
mvt goidt o a2 oopado fataebroah Se a 


ceiver e'denal: a! beton ow dolidw avis 

co yoiworiot aff ” axed ted a'nts | 
‘tious edt Ledeen ifsw ae 

tacntbtent na sew eos Loup tasty BEE 

aid Doe ,ovpsoriwtolq: edt to oanea add) 

‘0 bnix emon tedtedw daw, baxtook sgaitt 
fed? to tao Gon od of Fon caw, ta oueeieN all 
(oi? tedtidw bas tagew ged? Sade 20% ¢ ati 
“ental ta etil aeugd 1, 08a vi edit 


aay? 
5 4 16 otts(ohund soeudme of gem hogs APE 


» ae 
;iive To tnemteent?. atd mi i.esh ed bes 
nay 


ef? tlet odw oaxodtwelienton, sam, Cnt 
" ,esenasotpenoe pomd edt at on es 


Sais 


2! Gig = 


"Moreover his natural sense of the superficial 


picturesqueness of the miserable and the unclean was 

extremely acute.---The idea that Baudelaire imported into 

his theme was, as a general thing, an intensification 

of its repulsiveness, but it was at any rate feta 5 an 
Ivan Turgenieff influenced James considerably 

in his creative writing. James admired him for his 

aesthetic appreciation of sensations both of life and 

of religion. An interesting note in the following 

appreciative statement is that about Turgenieff's 

feeling for the passion and beauty of religion. 
"Imagination guides his hand and modulates 

his touch, and makes the artist worthy of the observer. 

In a word, he is universally sensitive. In suscept- 

ibility to the sensuous impressions of life---to colours 

and odours and forms, and the myriad ineffable refine- 

ments and enticements of beauty---he equals, and even 

surpasses, the most accomplished representatives of the 

French school of story-telling; and yet he has, on the 

other hand, an apprehension of man's religious impulses, 


of the ascetic passion, the capacity of becoming dead 


I. Idem. p. 63; 


> — a As 7" ea ee a aS te) 


: ] , a: : : as ¢ Pie 
y oad os «Lill tage (evn sp, emai caiman | racigaiaamatti oe a ° os m4 


ae 


- —— a 


a 


oe 


1S. Ae to panne Lex tan ali tevyootol” “a 
> baa @Ldsteaian ox? to RA ONSHD "Lk 

ilebusd Padt seb id ®-=— .0d08" 
itisnetot os ,aolae Bagenes § 8a Jaen 

ti dyad , ame nore tagetl 

bias ne. beopert ta! Tito monet neki 

tinbe seet ‘<Rnrie Faw ov tee 6, 

' WhO -eesed. TO 20 llalpeween ds | 

i nl efon natteoresnf BA | ho daphi 

su*ty so08 Jaq? af Trototada ovidates 


‘7089e¢ fis ost saan ong tol ms 


7 
dnad sid obieg Aoltent neat” 

a0 ' rf 16 gegvtor tealixa st easen ona fon 
. Ff 

-ovitiante ¢lledreving af ef aa 


\Fe-nOtii So ane 


lauetqgm@il epoyvenes en? oF 
iflet eldetTeni, balaym ene bea -Antot Snip au6, 

.alespe od---yedeed to etasaeoltne ba | ; 

20 ov ltutneae rer bedellowooss Teen oid 86) ai 

‘7 Ho ,Ged ef Fey Dna jpallievevtove te todos 

sealvgmi ayolsi fos aan So So tanetetads ta bast 4 


bush gnimooed, to gWinaqes ede Hotes 


ge 


2 ey = 

to colours and odours and beauty, never dreamed of 

in the philosophy of Balzac and Flaubert, Octave 
Feuillet and Gustave Droz.---Let us add, in con- 
clision, that his merit of form is of the first eeaeeR 

Religion, then, we must assume, meant to James 
nothing more than a sort of complementary passion to 
the sensuous, a capacity of becoming dead to colors, 
odors, and beauty, in other words a kind of negative 
aesthetic thrill. 

One of the most important, as well as the 
longest, of James's literary essays was Nathaniel 
Hawthorne, which was published in 1879 in the English 
Men of Letters series. This is a book comprising 
almost two hundred pages of history, biography, and 
criticism. In it James shows that his admiration 
Yor Hawthorne is based on the latter's ability to 
make picturesque literary capital out of the Puritan 
conscience, and incidentally reveals himself as an 
expatriated American and an utter snob. 

It is quite reasonable that one who depended 
to such an extent upon the richness of impression 


and association to be gathered from his surroundings 


—eS— - se 


ee a ae — 


a ae 


nag 


(en 
, Vs 


At SS 
~~ 


= 


atl ‘i i 
te 
i. 


«a 
oo We 
Pe 
Ca a wad 
\d Of My 


7 


See = 
Should feel keenly the poverty of Hawthorne's external 
lifa, the decidedly unliterary influence of the small 
New England town and the monotony of every-day adventure. 
James expresses this feeling in the following paragraph. 
"One might enumerate the items of high civil- 
ization, as it exists in other countries, which are 
absent from the texture of American life, until it 
Should become a wonder to know what was left. No State, 
in the European sense of the word, and indeed barely 
a@ specific national name. Nonsovereign, no court, 
no personal loyalty, no aristocracy, no church, no 
clergy, no army, no diplomatic service, no country 
gentlemen, no palaces, no castles, nor manors, nor old 
country-houses, nor parsonages, nor thatched cottages, 
nor ivied ruins; no cathedrals, nor abbeys, nor little 
Norman churches; no great Universities nor public 
schools---no Oxford, nor Eton, nor Harrow; no literature, 
no novels, no museums, no pictures, no political society, 
no sporting class---no Epsom nor Ascot: Some such list 
as this might be drawn up of the absent things in the 
American life of forty years ago, the effect of which 


upon an English or a French imagination, would probably, 


; a al ies . 
et Mik rn 
; 7 i un ” tT > Mt ql 
j ae | aT) 
' ’ 
we al : 
v 
. 
i} A a . 
4 5 ~ . » 
18 7 : ’ : 
= 
it) 
jw 
j { 


LS iweH Io. ¢iroevog att ¢lgesd- alate 


eiltat euasedt finn wi bobsows' vit 
7 
: ; a3 -cTove to YRovenGe ext San nwee baatgl 

Fiaas 


fo : ) oT oft ak, gaiiost ain? 2 OURS 1QRO? ry 


u ,erkhi soltemk to enptto? ede, vont 


7 
ew Jatw wont oF tebtow)s M0080. 
) oe 
stad ba bane ,tow ett Bo eskes cea 
Tage i ,fralieteroa: ak sORen fz ol Pan Oke. 7 


ih - 


fords on .voatootelts of a ayor cespal 


tr ,Ootvtes siteamoiqth On .vare on 4% 


34 TON ,G0lJaao on ,Bpevatay és 
: 
,2eyattoo Aedovadd ton ,@epenogiad Son 2080 0d-Ey 


Y 
‘Sit ton ,@gedda tom , fiathotiuo of ssalns bobyt 
: sili | 


ay 
’ 


Osq TOn Melvieteviny 2a6e8s. 2A (decode mm 
,St/Tavyeell on ;wottall thn, ,.sove son Lich se <5 on-=r6p 
Selooe {poltilog on SESE ee On, Gciesum on eh | 

J2 ont0& ifoosA toa moodat on~-«asslo palsue 
eft pi epnin? toeade edt fo. ag aweed od sige 


dolttw to. toette end) one axasy “trot to oth 
~(fdedorg Siver hobtansyamt fonert a xo cocoa 


' y | : } My ‘ qt 
ries oP 0 J 
{ 7 


( iy mY, 7 j f Ai ye? 
a “"y [ re 1A 


ee. oath. ae ena ete 


2G) = 

as a general thing, be appalling. The natural 
remark, in the almost lurid light of such an indict- 
ment, would be that, if these things are left out, 
everything is left out. The American knows that a 
good deal remains} what it is that remains---that is 
his secret, his joke, as one may say. It would be 
cruel, in this terrible denudation, to deny him the 
consolation of his national gift, that "American 
humour' of which of late years we have heard so EON: 

It is not surprising, I say, that James, with 
all his love for things that are surrounded, entwined, 
ilvy-covered, and enriched with associations of all kinds, 
Should have leaned toward the European rather than the 
American view of the denuded condition of American life, 
and that he should have given this pseudo-Ruskinian 
account of ide It is most picturesquely Jamesian, 
and it is not for this that I have characterized him 
as a snob. It is quite reasonable that anyone should 


prefer the schloss on the Rhine to the ice-house on 


the Hudson. Phe following Little bit of superiority, 


1. James, Henry: Nathaniel Hawthorne; N. Y.; Harper 
and Brothers, 1879. pp. 42-43. 

2. Compare Ruskin's refusal to come to America because 
he would not go to a country which had no castles or 
ivied ruins. 


7 = ~~ 
matfleqgs od  pabde Sebi 
a Py > tog kd Biel. teoala, ogy, a 
; % Lins epee ti tad? od biwom iF 


‘ ie 
wrt ert 'T s2u0 rrel al ea 


tarlt<--anis rot? el ti Medi tembenes any 


Fam a0 426 ,e00f afd T0%0 


! ged? ,ttln lasetian, sist tea sol tad 
eza0y otal to aphie ea. 

tee Ll .pntelicyme, ton eb ome 

) I198 Ota Tally subtde tox evel 


Tooeaa Adin boiloLune brs 2, be 09" 
iat), et? Brewot penunalt oved DE 
ihaoy Abebtingd off to weiy need 
~QOdae ‘ag sevin 6ver, Bipode of tase 2 

§ a: 

erst Ylespaetmsitolq Zsom ei tL. ‘Vi To Dou 
tlietoartedc, ovad, 1 sate aind got wd at. 
ai{t eldsposaet ativnp 62, 37 done @ 
easiot-ool, edt of andi eit oo eaofiog att 0% 


tequs lo Pid ei?z tic satwollo¥, a? 0abuH 4 
" i : ‘) 7 


. eo aa 

sped apiieith of ems od [asutex iia 

0 seftaeo om bad doddv ‘Witawod a ot 

| . uel ol m Ree 
by aieatrebemraiy ie - 


Oe .s 
however, is of a different color. 

"We are told by Mr. Lathrop that there existed 
at Salem, during the early part of Hawthorne's life, ‘a 
strong circle of wealthy families", which 'maintained 
rigorouély the distinctions of class,' and whose ‘enter- 
tainments were splendid, their manners magnificent.' 
This is a rather pictorial way of saying that there 
were a number of people in the place---the commercial 
and professional aristocracy, as it were---who lived 
in high comfort and respectability, and who, in their 
small provincial way doubtless had pretensions to be 
exclusive. Into this delectable company Mr. Lathrop 
intimates that his hero was free to jatar 

Of course Mr. Lathrop's phraseology invited the 
attack, but one is inclined to turn upon James his own 
incredulous comment about the "divinely disinterested 
hostility"of Henry D. epee mina inquire what unsung 
episode in the life of the young social climber is 
enbalmed in this paragraph, what house of provincial 
New England aristocracy was closed to him---in his 


Cambridge period, perhaps---by the too late (1789) 


arrival in America of his Irish grandfather. 


1. Nathaniel Hawthorne; p. 45. 
2. Vide ante Pk 48-49. 


ee ee 


“ 


Prey « ’ 
DAG . 
i 

ivt 
ny Jem, 
i De toRE 
- aay 


= ‘Oi = 
James's appreciation of Hawthorne is purely 
aesthetic; his admiration is chiefly aroused by the 
fact that Hawthorne colored his narratives with the 
New England consciousness of sin without being bound 


by it personally. 


"Thiscis the real charm of Hawthorne's writing 


---this purity and spontaneity and naturalness of fancy. 
For the rest, it is interesting to see how it borrowed 


& particular colour from the other faculties that lay 


near it---how the imagination, in this capital son of 
the old Puritans, reflected the hue of the more purely 
moral part, of the dusky, overshadowed conscience. The 
conscience, by no fault of its own, in every genuine 
offshoot of that sombre lineage, lay tnder the shadow 
of the sense of sin. This darkening cloud was no 


essential part of the nature of the individual; it 


stood fixed in the general moral heaven under which 
he grew up and looked at life. It projected from 
above, from outside, a black patch over his spirit, 
and it was for him to do what he could with the black 
patch. There were all sorts of ways of dealing with 


it.----Hawthorne's way was the best, for he contrived 


{ 
; 
| 
‘ 

| 


ag 3 * ’ 


i) 


2 
¢ 


itne@ee 


au 


se ON 
by an exquisite process, best known to himself, to 
transmute this heavy moral burden into the very sub- 
Stance of the imagination, to make it evaporate in 
the light and charming fumes of artistic production. 
---Nothing is more curious and interesting than this 
almost exclusively imported character of the sense 

of sin in Hawthorne's mind; it seemed to exist there 
merely for an artistic or literary purpose.---His 
relation to it was only, as one may say, intellect- 
ual; it was not moral and theological. He played 
with it, and used it as a pigment} he treated it, as 
the metaphysicians say, objectively. ----He speaks of 
the dark disapproval with which his old ancestors, in 
the ease of their coming to life, would see him trif- 


ling away as a story-teller. But how far more dark- 


ly would they have frowned could they have understood 


that he had converted the very principle of their own 
What pleased him in 
such subjects was their picturesqueness, their rich 
duskiness of colour, their chiaroscuro; but they were 
not the expression of a hopeless, or ewen of a predom- 


1 
inantly melancholy, feeling about the human soul.” 


1. Nathaniel Hawthorne; pp. 56-59. 


Ny ir + 


¥ 


» 


my i, ; “4 “OES Oat (ts eam atoetdag 


; Ah hy | + an 4 [4h2 » SMO i? TS nent 


, 
if 
i 


1, 138 94 OOO. ws ep trey. bevaay Wgx9. ng 
i " hy 


6 Ca mi Lf ty ot ‘= che Homi “ok 


en baw wey nme = lege. a hem nae 


, 


o he] a fi ee pod ong 


= 93) = 


In 1888 James published Partial Portraits, a 


Series of essays on literary subjects chiefly reprints 
of articles published in various magazines in the five 
years before their appearance in book form. Three 
samples from this collection will serve to show the 
tenor of the whole work. 

James seemed always to be interested more in 
the form and style of a writer than in his morality. 
Even when morality is clearly evident, James bases 
his praise on the form rather than the content. Take 
for instance the essay on Robert Louis Stevenson. 

"The subject is endlessly interesting, and 
rich in all sorts of provocation, and Mr. Stevenson 
is to be congratulated on having touched the core of 
it. I may do him injustice, but it is, however, here, 
not the profundity of the idea which strikes me so much 
as the art of the presentation---the extremely success- 
ful form. There is a genuine feeling for the perpet- 
ual moral question, a fresh sense of the difficulty of 
being good and the brutishness of being bad; but what 


there is above all is a singular ability in holding 


1. James, Henry: Partial Portraits; London; Macmillan 
and Company, 1888. p. 169. "Robert Louis Stevenson" 
first appeared in The Century Magazine April 1888. 


>=, 


m Wd, 
5 tone” 


eer 


4 


&) Sa 


woth \so eeu eee 


TAT 


fy 


18.2 


wits 2 she protes ae 


1 ate maT ee mente remy 


as 


" die eo 


Jutd olf She Soy ae 


se aaa 


4nS 


ht cae ih Seton sata) 


cee ORL At 


ree te 
By Gai Sag Sef 


VEC AOS othe 


é Bab: 
: % iw 
JO 6 Te 
, 4 ou 
eh le 


via 2 6 eee 
mag edd conn dee 


‘ 
> yg) © al phy ait? i 
> 


i = are La 


i 
bast inwode ae 


ai rmLou a 


é)  nokeswdes twroatd 


aaah 


2GA = 
the interest. I confess that that, to my sense, 
is the most edifying thing in the short, rapid, con- 
centrated story, which is really a masterpiece of 
concision." 

The same thing is said of Alphonse LEG he 
"Like most of the French imaginative writers (judged, 
at least, from the English standpoint) he is much less 
concerned with the moral, the metaphysical world, than 
with the sensible. We proceed usually from the former 
to the latter, while the French reverse the process. 
Except in politics, they are uncomfortable in the 
presence of abstractions, and lose no time in reducing 
them to the concrete. But even the concrete, for then, 
is a field for poetry, which brings us to the fact that 
the delightful thing in Daudet's talent ié& the inveter- 


ate poetical touch." 


The last article in the collection is an essay 
on the art of fiction. This is very Ruskinian in its 
identification and unification of all the arts, and it 
is very aesthetic in its statements of the purpose of 
the novel. I shall quote from a number of his para- 


graphs. 


a | 


Li f ‘a 
: ie bed sF eo 1" ' THsa bao 


ve -L4 las 


Lo y oh tii 
i} 

; Lat?) .@one2 lee ae 
- : af DA i | %9 : , 
, rey)" 

Tyy C4 ie a 
4 


Pee ae a? ee She LR it 


" 


Tia oh "Sif 


at oel4 a 


yA 


Hale 2 “To aes 


lotate Gti ary obtetzeas qieow 
7. 


< oopernapntne wena ee aa ti 
> 9 iv Per | —_ 


95 - 
"The only reason for the existence of a 
novel is that it does attempt to represent life. 
When it relinquishes this attempt, the same attempt 
that we see on the canvas of the painter, it will 
have arrived at a very strange pass. Lis nov 
expected of the picture that it will make itself 
humble in order to be forgiven; and the analogy 
between the art of the painter and the art of the 
novelist is, so far as I am able to see, Pee Ga 
"The only obligation to which in advance 
we may hold a novel, without incurring the accusa- 
tion of being arbitrary, is that it be eee ania 
The following is an interesting discussion 
of morality in relation to the novel. 
"Will you not define your terms and explain 
how (a novel being a picture) a picture can be either 
moral or immoral? You wish to paint a moral picture 


or carve a moral statue: will you not tell us how you 


would set about it? We are discussing the Art of 


Ll. Idem. p- S378. “The Art of Fiction" was first publish- 


ed in Longman's Magazine in September 1884. 
2. Idem. p. 384. 


Se i :osaer (fad: Git ia 
al 7 i 


1? Mocs adod fie 


y oft 6° Dagae 

‘wGas 

ENE le iagcad Ae 
ae, 


j t . toe | ens aw oa 


% ‘ nari oie eee | 


; 
~ ' 
t 
iv 


LT 
¥ 


lover a aioe 


:, 3O37. G5e Bhiae ty 


vol toh? aan 


17) 
it 
qi wr ! 


Lovo ay 
on) ik 


(Th 


* 4 Jon Aue, '" -m rar 


f 


' Wats | Wt rei 
Sey tee, dey > Ao% OU ae 
IW pee ee ei 


ay To) Citys Bee 


od Oe agentes ota ; ” a a . i 
Ce ue hee tt 
ix 9 ¥ ag? ' 1 Ni a 4 ie “a 
Ee i Ne Pe) Se Ae ee 


was, Ar (pti s 4 


as | 
hioe 


4 i 
v 


ie reentrant dedi 


Cig. 2 


Ficthon; questions of art are questions (in the widest 


sense) of execution; questions of morality are quite 
al 


another affair." 
Between 1888 and 1893 James wrote a series 


of literary essays which he published in 1893 in 
rs 


Hssays in London and Elsewhere. The most important 


of the essays in this book are "James Russell Lowell" 
and"Criticism", the first written in 1891 and the sec- 
ond in 1893. 

It is interesting to note how James placed 
Lowell's style above his morality. The fohlowing two 
quotations will illustrate the point. 

"His poetical performance might sometimes, 
no doubt, be more intensely lyrical, but it is hard 
to see how it could be more intensely moral---I mean, 
of course, in the widest sense of the tn 

"It was in looking at him as a man of letters 
that one drew closest to him, and some of his more fan- 
atical friends are not to be deterred from regarding 
his career as in the last analysis a tribute to the 
dominion of style. This is the idea that to my sense 


his name most promptly evokes; and though it was not 


1. Idem. pp. 464-405. 


2. Harper and Brothers Publishers, N.Y. 
5. Essays in London and Elsewhere; p. 61. 


- . 4 i ‘ i ’ 5 io ] 


ret Wan Se ahAIAULIA. Milf aall vai Ot nhl aetna 


ee 


| ii iar a ie! Eee ane. el ganepl g 
(Oi Ro an (7) abe \ of aus 


on a at, MOAI Apa | an we suas 


«9 6 wo ve BAN ote, 


a 


ea Nd prroiehis Oe aa, 
a 


| od evarda he eee eee 
“ Liranc Obs ima wy ao fax b¥eag f 2H 


> ae DA oe ah : CAS SDa TA Oxon, ae , 


| | Ay, ee 
HQC 7 Eve eae 72 ATOM £9 Bilbo, SE eee 5] 


EE 


‘ 

ne) 
\ one A tou Soe kwoea oh ee 
cm 


‘ , F : “is wiht al Lite CW Bo ag 
A Oe OR ee mens on 
+ Mm POTS Pel a ree, See eee alice ket ie 


| Me TE Beh EAS a ee ee a) 90708 
| | o He rit 20h) oe ah Agee dh bl to rye e 
: Ae 


wa OUT diol clas ah aba nate one 


| iio - os vidoes — (oa bal = eenkntenhetieest tan an ee 


: 
| eat ss ene baa wohdpen 
| Sh é ' a apay hse. pas tt Sad 


sed 1 ors es — npr onsen geet be antigens A aint ney ee 
‘ J FP ' 


OY. lies 
by any means the only idea he cherished, the unity of 
his career is surely to be found in hing 
Before turning to the essay on criticism, let 
us consider a part of the essay on Gustave Flaubert. 
There are three sentences here which may be taken as 
an answer to Mr. Brownell, telling him in James's own 
words why the hope that his philosophy might prevail 
was "the youngest of his es The reason, too, 
is purely aesthetic, the idea of individual standards 
of appreciation, the aristocracy of feeling. 
"Why feel, and feel genuinely, so much about 
‘art’, in order to feel so little about its privplege? 
Why proclaim it on the one hand the hoyl of holies, only 
to let your behavior confess it on the other a temple 
open to the winds? Why be angry that so few people 
care for the real thing, since this aversion of the 
many leaves a luxury of ey 
The essay on criticism shows somewhat the 
large influence that Matthew Arnold's ideas had on 


James. It contains chiefly the idea of the sacer- 


1-Essays in London and Elsewhere; p. 
2-Vide ante p- 2. Note 1; and p. 3. 


5.-Essays in London and Hlsewhere; p. 


bed 
44 


Bet ' MERA, pai wD “Cees 


ca rh Reno? went ‘or en visa a 
; be 


inwitete sn no Gh) OP ackan?: ORO Nw, 


bes es ade Te. duel oul 

Bi ’ how eta. aaoneadtaek ‘ee Tht. 
PLES pe ‘awe ye aM of 

: its cri PL asd ey ON ole 


: > * > Py poe we eid ie) 79 MNS ic’ 
a 


4 


: ame cf ,ofveattane , 


ota ie 


TI OP LUCTUS OS | | ee 


as j arn a en 
« WEY beet f Les By ig RPE OE 


ae o YW No OL Aielioo ebro TOMS 
5 wot om tinatlh dacen ie: ‘wep Totuvhw ‘wy | | 
7 

ron ee wae al ie ae 

Lo eign 6 ene tie 
+x a ownage weal Dt ie eee eee | 
Pei lian vans malo LS fH it 


i) oy i 908) oat (Ofte tite enka inb ese 


A 4 
ee ee a eee ne ead NRE en Tre 


> vf, tyrone Cif bigs ine OR gag 
ota. SE Tp SS wiOe ih, mt eine a 


RAM Woah Be co aah A ae 


£35 


= OG = 
dotal nature of the office of critic, the idea expressed 
in his essay on Matthew Arnold that the critic should 
take the stream of truth at its source. 

"In this’ light one sees the critic as the real 
helper of the artist, a torch-bearing outrider, the 
interpreter, the brother. ----When one thinks of the 
outfit required for free work in this spirit, one is 
ready to pay almost any homage to the intelligence that 
has put it on; and when one considers the noble figure 
completely equipped---armed cap a pie in curiosity and 
sympathy---one falls in love with the apparition. It 
certainly represents the knight who has knelt through 
his long vigil and who has the piety of his office. 

For there is something sacrificial in his function." 

James's affection for Balzac and all his works 
was, I believe, based on an aesthetic admiration for 
one who could "burn always with hard, gemslike flame." 
In 1905 James published a book containing two lectures, 
The Question of Our Speech, and The Lesson of ne Oe 
The first of these lectures deals with the American 
habit of ignoring the tone qualities of language, and 


G 


1. Idem. p. 264. 


2. The Question of Our Speech; Boston and N.Y.; Houghton 
Mifflin Company, 1905. 


WE Di aay wa ¥ fala ee , 5 
<a 
Sth Swit ont Yo aaa 


S \ GO: (eae Pi Seale ak 


‘ LL Yates Oo CO) 4 } ‘AWE rie 


* 4 

DUO tte Cegele pee 
of cee hte fs 09) va ; dl i 
i ‘? 


; P ; P iy th ‘ 
be RO. aM le -= Paw agg ed ig 
j 4 
yr 4 a 
soC8 i.oof goin ay i aio) 6905. 
E : ‘ 
(p Lick ort aitipey oe e 
D | © poe a vy 
aa Est, a4 Dita ie A0y, 
oy * os 
PORT EO SLE Ae oe ee 


; " l y re \ b L ia 
Jaa f ey art) DO Teh eh ‘on 


ay 
too ke 2 e474) Gat aI Weseae P wi elle Thi } 
7 . M4 mh 


“3 foes I : nen CTW a ig wie il eon \ 


pr » Oa erie be aig ataiet AA 


‘ys 


Mi eR |e baile sear os pe ke ome 


ee (Od) SOP d eee eae tania 
4% y 


. ‘i baa ( i wD anos ane pas 3 <aut to q a 
) ; : wre - wo 
. = _— . ° ie nalros Geeepine- erence i ental ae EPICS octets ; ; = ‘ onl 
ie iy 0 
; a) La iN ‘ 
4ora Sa Bi Rare a 6 eee mints Cas alia 
A Tah Wah DHL (A, ae wei 
“4 ” Ai ; vie 
eye | Karate ee 
: ; is 


ree ptnere ep ete meeps : vin 
i a ey oe ‘ ‘) 


- 99 - 

the second draws the moral of intensity from the 
works and life of Balzac. One may conclude from: 
a study of this essay something about the extent of 
the inPluence of Walter Pater on James. The follow- 
ing paragraph is a good summary of the whole essay. 

"That is how we see him, living in his garden, 
and it is by reason of the restless energy with which 
he circulated there thet I hold his fortune and his 
privelege, in spite of the burden of his toil and the 
brevity of his immediate reward, to have been before 
any others enviable. It is strange enough, but what 
most abides with us, as we follow his steps, is a sense 
of the intellectual luxury he enjoyed.----Balzac's lux- 
ury, as I call it, was in the extraordinary number and 
length of his radiating and ramifying corridors---the 
labyrinth in which he finally lost himself. What it 
comes back to, in other words, is the intensity with 
which we live---and his intensity is recorded for us 
on every page of his es 

Among the last of James's writings is an essay 


on Rupert Brooke, which was published as the introduc- 


1. The Question of Our Speech; "The Lesson of Balzac" 
pp. 83-85. 


Sig! a i ej i) he J 6 i ih 


wiar 


ae ‘ v A Vay Ly. eee Te 
LEA Coke eT Roh SCAT A on Ve 
re Ca gc Np recs aba i, mathe abbas ities bie aris Buh PES mle arm Pe 


aii" ee 
cc VE OWS re He) eet Ro. 


ete Ti TLet to deere 
A Cer es th : Awe a 
loré soaltaesy | 7? Us say We ata 
4 io od {\ tat? eee po imig * r) 
[ j LY 82 ie ee | ; 


wes oa abe 
an is Oboatte Bly «> Diane Xe 
oat pri | ww tia iw moan 
- ston toni 
. 27 e Be ad, a ee eee 1 4 
- in bee hc we ae Oat GER BS bg 
(dhe en: detiier wa cere; 


f ye } ‘ " PA tay f . fi) ¢ | bg Mundy 


Mn yee ie ef } @ e Vii Biwi ~«<d9 bE wie 


| fi Beto +4 > 

| hoe ae 7 eey ‘na 
" ith oat: ba eet: eee whowe 
| Ney git = ‘ visi ivue she lan Low AMONG twat 


| 4 

, Ap 

| AAS iy 

ee 

, i Z j f are "J yi 
t } vs ae. ‘ ' a) 

. a, ¥, Py ae 

i KOS ee 


YR etme pee beam erie openbaar peop Pap irene ea ~~ pererrarare te 


i hs a LST a er i oF 1/ OP ee 


- 100 - 

’ al 
tion to a collection of Brooke's letters in 1916. 
In this essay we find the final expression of that 
aestheticism which had been James’s philosophic basis 
Since 1886. The form it takes in this essay casts 
an interesting light on the whole life of the author. 
It might be called the resultant of all the major 
forces which had moulded James's life. From early 
boyhood James was intensely interested in things that 
had what he called “associations.” Outside things, 
his surroundings, his associates, the"tone”™ or "flavor" 
of whetever country he happened to be in, affected him 
as great influential factors. He was interested in 
tracing the effects of country and national traditions 
on writers. The first evidence of this interest shown 
in his critical writings is found in his review of 
Hereward the Last of the cee which he said 
that Kingsley was admirable and delightful when he 
unconsciously expressed the characteristics of his 
nation. The last evidence of this interest is in 


his treatment of Brooke. 


1l-Letters From America by Ruvert Brooke with a preface 
by Henry James; N.Y.; Charles Scribner's Sons. 1916. 


2. Vide ante p. 47. 


a 


m Lil Bi ses ARGH saiant. be 


ery. ee St Tyo dO) a 


ek ne ame 
ot’ Pung eee hale sit tates ® 
artis gee awh dct aa c 
SOngT FT MiLGR eat ae 
ent nO Ca LT “edie 
nitoson gtd hed fae ie 


ey | al 
— - } * 2 bt 
me cory AOsliogd  B4G a ete 


af le € 7 : a pete Ti \ ing Rn Ab 


‘ A i” ‘es le ; *- fAl ire) i” Palins ent | - 
: e 7 % ’ . ’ rs A +z ¢ vs ’5 ; ? wo be f Sr “4 . | 
+ st J (O° a (aes) Seam 
° J } ’ i ' ie Pya't oui n | - 
! : 
; v 
| d 
p 
| 


* 


tet to afoetha oxen 

i ioe UA el TT Ot Rey arse eto Fh 
, i ‘ ‘ 

bi TINH Leche ite of os 
ie fh sy a | atin 2) Re ait Peo Bye 
ITs iah saad Poe tee eae whasanan 

tO cobMO Nt Janey. dat AUneereRE cabs aa 


] ; Al pO TOV ; wi ty re oni e Saine rani on? cee 
ie F 


| tpl dnitt tg snipe nove 
| ae 
7 


o ~ TE selene tial eet eat Mt whe are rey 

| ; ,e39o nn ice 6 staat toe ae 2” 

. Me a he oy 

| |  ONSN ag alia hn adie 
| ft 5 li ve) er * ) 
*] f AB! Aes 7 at , f AW 
h i f Py , ae beh fa b 
i aw el: ii os oe aie phen att 
ieee = A ee ei ar na.oacitart sane . 

: a ; a iS ate Wrage.) vi 4 


- 101 - 

There was no high moral appeal to James in 
the life and deafh of Brooke; he did not feel any 
great exaltation in the fact that the poet had shown 
high idealism in answering the first call of his 


country, nor any regret that his genius had been 


snuffed out by his untimely death. On the contrayy, 


his interest in Brooke was in the fact that Brooke was 
a complete, fully rounded representative of the modern 
product of the English tradition of hae he 
expressed a ghoulish satisfaetion that death had con- 
cluded the episode because that event made the whole 
so beautifully poetic. 

"He had never seemed more animated with our 
newest and least deluded, least conventionalized life 
and perception and sensibility, and that formula of 


his so distinctively fortunate, his overflowing share 


in our most developed social heritage which had already 


1. Letters from America; Introduction; pp. xiii-xiv. 
What it first and foremost really comes to, I think, 
is the fact that at an hour when the civilized peoples 
are on exhibition, quite finally and sharply on show, 
to each other and to the world, as they absolutely 
never in all their long history have been before, the 
English tradition (both of amenity and energy I nat- 
urally mean), should have flowered at once into a 
Specimen so beautifully producible. 


< SORPIP ds 
yy Doxdd data on aay 

) tA. HOM Gea ee hehe pete 

id Sentra ay pc tasteanll 

heh arvrentioh. CF nt Coa ae 


iit fad? Yevues Can ee 
ty adit) ed ae 

te t -_ sr Ogre ek THOT ’ 
hoot, Ens oe 

co Tue OLY iw? the ES eee 
1b. ee . oy us toes a bee 
“of? pana: “ WE.0e Brit ae 

fond elheee 

t a es he ew Lowen ait eer 
daewoo ind toes top oom 

ae 

: Y herve wel AHAG. Dips re sono 
voLiawe  otanpear vey repress oma 


Piced) tnieor par oLey iD Taos A 


— os “ * + 0b qe o— ee ee os 


¢ add) DO Te eO ee oe 1 

ee ae" t Ags er mn 
tix iP Rey, el eee a pond ynat Wht: 
Levene OG 8 DALY Be ee DN ie eee eae 
MLE. Les att yh yh tty od hae Leite donate ' 
Os Fee). ) CP ea pojyatea ast Op Git ey ne, aol fe) - 
to Line ot dreds he Gene ps ae ie sire) 
nh 93) DeowelS ATi bRmbRe D . 
bo burke wh 2 iat Bilin ‘ah . 


- 102 - 
glimmered, began with this occasion to hang about him 
Zz 
as one of the aspects, really a shining one, of his fate." 


The idea seemed to be that the most complete 


representative of a dying social order, that order 


represented by the unlimited expansion of pre-war days, 
could do nothing more sublimely poetic than gracefully 
die with the dying order. The following develops the 
idea more fully. 

“Everything about him of the keenest and bright- 
est (yes, absolutely of brightest) suggestion made so 
for his having been charged with wvery privelege, every 
humor, of our merciless actuality, our fatal excess of 
Opportunity, that what indeed could the full assurance 
of this be but that, finding in him the most charming 
object in its course, the great tide was to lift him 
and sweep him away? Questions and reflections after 
the fact, perhaps, yet haunting for the time and for 
the short interval that was still to elapse---when, 
with the sudden news that he had met his doom, an 
irrepressible ‘of course, of course!’ contributed its 


note well-nigh of support. It was as if the peculiar 


1. Idem. pp. xxxix-xl. 


f iC a ‘ ‘ : an ay 4 . ; we wa vi ey. ie / y Ie: Py n° : s 
Rs res a! Oe 5 ay alee RO i f ae 
| cr ih atthn tue ehtbel en Gok cy oslo a we gid lind im ME Aiba 


i) : ' As abt 


se od nobei@or ated 00 Da ea 
d Jet tote \atoneon auto ah 

. is: oY Oi Wiel eee wobt ca 
Don Gib ah ovidagal 
C bec laiiay ont ee boda 


> 


er UL aml Ot nesesne ye labo of 
rg tok adit Re CME yee et) ie 

“i Lap ee n 

hs s Oe iAP oy Oo Oil toé4 GREseieee ha 
L. ten ts lad) he efareiogies a | 
a ay ah eROre die, one aeee nctvind alles 
balay, ork Laonhae se ok ee ieee tog 

, \) heate’ adda ‘‘cehaue c 

be tind t hh Pate Sag ad 7 

3 : i ehi8° Jaes iy vopeteon @af al $e 
fooliter Ori! Wier pe bas ae itd, @h owe 
See ee oe 
Meds nbauole © Lie sae te Lays etn toned 
ae yt oa Tall) akin neste sty eel 

DS TAU LSP NOO 1 CHT 20.) SS oiiarele 


; Fi . 
a, mw wwe _ eg ile Thoth dalor Liew > 


e \ 
1 | "a i tS Ng A : v ‘ie 
Pat hep ene (ied ew FS Ee || a aw hep I eb at wee i . - be + ° a 
7 bs / 3 * ry oe = A A ft ad 
¥ if ve mh ' ~, : ~ i) a as v ry =, q , 


- 103 - 
richness of his youth had itself marked its limit, 


so that what his own spirit was inevitably to feel 


about his 'chances'---required, in the wondrous way, 
£ 


the consecration of the event." 

Thus we have in this last essay, written in 
the year James died, the final culmination of James's 
aestheticism in an essay showing the author entirely 
unstirred by the inspiring moral spectacle of a young 
poet making the supreme sacrifice for his ideals of 
patriotism and democracy, but expressing great aes- 
thetic satisfaction at the eoineidence of the death 
of the "perfect specimen" with the downfall (as he 


thought) of the civilization that produced hin. 


Le Dadam. pe >: i WF 


sot SL dad il Ue a Se oe a: 


Tedd fies 


at of vi Vos Oa eee ony wee has a 


tn WO naa abahe 


Ra Lay pe 


Soy tee a! 


aE 


Me ’ yo. ' ‘aie . 7a ynes . 
f ; Le ove OW Rite 
: I i r ae E ¢ teh OD 
* i 4s ¥ 
) > 80 9) ete 
a ati (da... et? vase b ig 
ee teed PAN oo lta ‘ 
1 eA 4 r 1 OU Aneat! eee } 
{ mtg » noite ew irae 
; Lo 
nontweqd) toe Peas 
‘ e ‘ At! 
‘ ai } } Vy " iw £6 Pret (| 4G (ee 
( At 
y 
- - + bane os i Iocan iat iealinte ieee oecaa lower, Unaet) eagtarm: 
oh Mh a a ii eh E 
Bin, 
7} fo ; P. ; ide 
ene compat tpae en arineb ietinn seer menenar etna ; 
, ' et ry ” 


= oa 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
I. Bibliographies 


Cambridge History of American Literature. Vol. IV. 
pp- 671-675. 

Phillips, Le Roy. Bibliography of the Writings of 
Henry James. 1906-.Boston and N.Y. Houghton, 
Mifflin Company. This book is divided into 
three parts as follows: 
Part I:- A complete record of James's var- 
ious publications from 1864 to 1906, with de- 
scriptions of first editions, American and 
English, and noticeé of all subsequent edit- 
ions. 
Part Ii:- Contributions to books, and a 
translation. 
Part III:- Contributions to periodicals, with 
a complete record of the reappearance of all 


such contributions in books and collections. 


Cary, Elisabeth Luther. The Novels of Henry James. 1905 


Chronoligical list by Frederick A. King. 


. 

] 
] 
4 


r~ 


+e FU. 


A ind a 
el nm 
Relansicapy NigtibL acti 5 


re 


hai Riedel’ inh anatith checteahaay Bly aeons pete te nd . ~ 
( , oF 7 


¥ Ly : ; an oY 
Since cleat Cail ac eh 


oe el eT 


aolipano -odta® os) ee 


4125 AAU AEEDK (35 eae 


oe stat" seucphbd :u eee 


a ; of mie 
ni a 1 0 ten! Sexaeay r 
AX ere), 


‘ ‘% S76 L60Gg) & - ; < * ae) \ j i 
io Oo” (eh, out Bug ltavhider eyes ee % 
/UMoLIloe Seed 2G ead esate | 

dire Ilu Io @6o0lktoa Ba dtoas 
PAO 

, 8. of obtud i tdno8 <3; 0) gaat 
O00.) DRA 

cy ‘a he ESP : LO. art 

+ 87, Le PSOReN Bio Lane, es 


Wao. ute Soe Livia tins ob re. 
ied). .vatldnd Meedaaere eC 


: Bae) yes aL Te f fender eyed D ; 


‘iw = 7 = ) i ry vee. i J 


- 105 - 


II, Collected Works 


Collection of Novels and Tales. 14 Vols. London 1883. 
Novels and Tales. New York, 26 Vols. lLondon 
and New York, 1907-17. Uniform edition, London, 
1915-16. 


III. Separate Works 


(Critical and descriptive writings only) 


Transatlantic Sketches. Boston, 1875. 

French Poets and Novelists. London, 1878. 

Hawthorne. (English Men of Letters.) London, 1879. 

Portraits of Places. London, 1873. 

Notes on a collection of Drawings by M. George du Maurier, 
London, 1884. 

& Little Tour in France. Boston, 1885. 


Partial Portraits. London and New York, 1888. 


Catalogue of a Collection of Drawings by Alfred Parsons, I. 
With prefatory note by Henry James. London, 1891. 


Picture and Text. 1893. 


Essays in London and Elsewhere. London, 1896. 
English Hours. Boston and New York, 1905. 


The Question of Our Speech. The Lesson of Balzac. Two 


Lectures. Boston and New York, 1905. 


SO ee NA ena ee 
Ya, Sh ben f , i rs) ‘ » 
Beane hs 


— t + yh nici clataeat Si lip apliponisa onsale dled taeda 


N GALTON, Detawl flay) iy 
NS 


\ a . H ae 
a i! ala? Doe «afeyoll fo aes 
x07 well sete? bod aterm 


LToL, Wall ical 


‘ -asoe ne 
nes? -Gl02 aD 3, 


| SP TORE 


~ % 


~ " \ 
‘ ~ l a'/t sBGORLT 4 
ee 6 Gat mm 
* 
t ey my ? 
a Al. see Tee. Wosv On LO 


» tebrml 


vite (Ss Ofok £10 eTSe ty 2ese 


OO! “exe? 5 


“COOL ,NmOe Wek Othe n6reot aN 
é ; 2 G. fO8 BOul, Len? 30 Op may a 2 ce A itOK ae 


0t9¥ wed dtta, sorAok -temmtend 


oe he em a Ow See rare 


- 106 - 
Views and Reviews, Now First Collected. Introduction 
by Le Roy Phillips. Boston, 1908. 
Italian Hours. New York and London, 1909. 
The Outcry. New York and London, 1911. 
A Small Boy and Others. New York and London, 1913. 
Notes of a Son and Brother. New York and London, 1914. 
Notes on Novelists. New York and London, 1914. 
The Middle Years. London and New York, 1917. 


The Letters of Henry James, Selected and edited by 
Percy Lubbick. London, New York, 1920. 2 Vols. 


IV Uncollected Contributions to Books and Recent Magazines. 


Walter Besant and Henry James. The Art of Fiction. 


Boston, 1885. 

The Odd Number. Thirteen Tales by Guy de Maupassant. 
Translated by Jonathan Sturges. An Intro- 
duction by Henry James. 1889. 

Alphonse Daudet: Port Tarascon. The Last Adventures 
of the Illwtstrious Tartarin. Translated by 
Henry James, with an introduction... New York 


and London, 1892. 


RMS i ARUN a shite outa 


; Aah BN. ee 
tend Gene bawes tok adele ib eh tld nek Mls = a eo 


~ Gf - 


nel tee ei rea 


oe Ap hherdt vols ae es 


WioY welt sees 


.Tohant bee anelt. van 


ts aa at ' 
> em 
ie 
=> iit PLLA »C* a) A 
ee ine lela tm 
‘ 3 1 BSN2') Stes os 79.8 


, 20 ive i tae Situ ‘To tey a } 
i. af 


oD 


ottodistael vad oo a 


y 
¥ 


i ; af “THO FDS ee a 
+VOSL netaas 

vd Soy Anew se? | team 

: ST EMO Ed hie unea? 

05% .Motw) tinel vd “weldeee 
tont ad? widorpaat. sade tehnetieee 
Sixedy at wie tes mets tt ee 


» olterhoxtol (a S22 aeent See 


SQBL no buw Sie 


i 


7 ‘ 
Ace Martner Oak Nf i oat: . ro lr parma ea cana ew, 
M4 , 1 ao 
u , . os 


- 107 - 

Wolcott Balestier: The Average Woman. A biographical 
sketch by Henry James. London, 1892. 

Hubert Crackenthorpe: Last studies. With an apprecia- 
tion by Henry James. Zonden', 1897. 

Library of the World's Best Literature---Ancient and 
Modern. Charles Dudley Warner, editor. 30 
Vols. 1897. “Nathaniel Hawthorne," Vol. Xii. 
“James Russell Lowell," Vol. XVI. "Tvan 
Turgenieff," Vol. XXV. 

Pierre Loti: Impressions, With an introduction by 
Henry James. Westminster, 1898. 

The Universal Anthology. Hdited by Richard Garnett. 
London, New York, Paris, and Berlin. 1899. 
"The Future of the Novel," pp. xiii-xv. 

The Vicar of Wakefield, with an introduction by Henry 
James, 1900. 

The Novels and Stories of Ivan Turgenieff. With an 


introduction by Henry James. 1903. 
American Literary Criticism, Selected and edited by 

William Morton Payne. New York, London, and 

Bombay, 1904. "Sainte-Beuve." (revised from 


the article in The North American Review, 


January, 1880. 


oR) motos’ sigue 
Nest Logon malioee 

| : 
Ot | '.¢ hi 945-O2P7 i ai" ne Ki ’ cadmog 


cot well 


ines sivo}! ed? 2b elo lea ate 


CORE eieynee 


2) pe nary tr nant nn IS amen Femi 


i) 
") 
k 
pa 


nyt? 


ts 


tsa Seid lh ell a 
a a 
aS r 
; » Ont 24 
eugo So garev oD neu pmeta e ’ 
" \ 4 , 
(ORO s Yee: Ud. Ogee 
; af in 5 
LngTS Pg ted a0 700 ented hee 
oneh Voel yd ocr ae 
; K ye 
' eet! Lt ie: 
US S6i0850 |. (Qi 
Onl vesay 
P e 0 , wemay? 
“ > »-t1erte s 30> 
: 250 Los esae io 
, teavar Hhtolh Vacee 
it “LOL OND SA fears 
i J : 
ur wee. Abra 
’ fora ft No eatin). ea 
OMG) on Dfescoie® 2o sae 
O08L aangh 
> \ cpap 2a) a reds 2 “a 4 
. ; J q ry a f a i Ae tsi Le. __ Bi eon 
r Lied os Heian boreak 


- 108 - 


Letters from America by Rupert Brooke, with a preface 
by Henry James, New York, 1916. 


V. Biography and Criticism 


Hapgood, Norman: Henry James. Literary Statesmen 
and Others. Chicago and New York, 1897. 

Harkins, E. F: Henry James. Little Pilgrimages 
among Men who have Written famous Books. 
Boston, 1902. 

Burton, Richard: Bjornson, Daudet, James: A Study 
in the Literary Time-Spirit. Boston, 1903. 

Preston, Harriet W: The Latest Novels of Howells and 
James. Atlantic Monthly, January 1903. 

Howells, W. D: Mr. Henry James's Later Work. North 
American Review, January 1903 and April 1906. 

Croly, Herbert: Henry James and His Countrymen. Lamp. 
February 1904. 


Cary, Elisabeth L: Henry James. Scribners October 1904 


" " " 


The Novels of Henry James; A Study. 
New York and London, 1905. 


Conrad, Joseph: Henry James: An Appreciation. North 


Anerican Review. January 1905 and April 1916. 


Vine a ee eS? ay vis 
} ay Aan va x 
1 
ere peew pera: sy rad ine 


ws fF se 


SS 13) FE NES 


whe 


in w 


ot wet neat tah ig 


2) dun, aga 1 


A I ato 7} 
came, ~tummd-<o-dtyy paemeaaatal 
; , 
a ‘Gl 3 \ | Ae Fs os Dy : og , 


CE 2 Se Si ee 


&Get sSARORE, 


;Teisad. sow nTets : brie a ‘a Ak 


Ties StS YIN Ome ie a 
Of Jed Me me ye | 


\Vittnot olinerne, "ogee 


pons Tair det 

ongiso3 aiemvboiuited tf siedand ee as 
s7hOn tg Bilevinll emus! ; 
OGL , SOORGD) tam ep fo Wok “a 

Too RA peote aaa ‘dhe meeot, hl, | 


Crane, Wade Bip hemanli 


{ 


AA | AMA 9 Cast eat pat esti Wiha baler, roe . 


- 109 - 


Elton, Oliver: The Novels of Mr. Henry James. Modern 


Studies. London, 1907. 

Gill, W. A: Henry James and His Double. Atlantic 
Monthly, October, 1907. 

Brownell, W.C: Henry James. American Prose Masters. 
New York, 1909. 

Fullerton, Morton: The Art of Henry James. Quarterly 
Review, April, 1920. 

Lee, Vernon: The Handling of Words: Meredith, Henry 
James. English Review, June 1910. 


Gretton, M. S: Mr. Henry James and His Prefaces. 


Contemporary Review. January 1912. 

James, Henry: A Small Boy and Others. 1913. 

Hueffer, Ford Madox: Henry James. London, 1916. 

Macy, John: Henry James. The Spirit of American 
Literature. 1913. 

James, Henry: Notes of a Son and Brother. New York, 
London, 1914. 

West, Rebecca: Henry James. London, 1916. 

Phelps, William Lyon: Henry James. The Advance of 
the English Novel. 1916. 

Canby, H- S: Henry James. Harper's Weekly. March 
20) £IMG. 


+ to nero 4h) Seer 


: ~~~ i, : M 
ioe ah bao 3a. PY a 
. iat J 


* 


i be Beans vine ek We 


VOWEL >  TaPOTOOS, ele ie 


Tek teen vined) tOem id 


Staal aeawadl 


- iy PS Verve 2 ent 08a 
’ h, 


é 


¥ aS SG os rg ‘eeiel 


ub .wolveR Veanoiie Sime 
Mut OS Spee A ae 


AG ‘une i MP een! fixo% 78 . 


8 a BET OR SCO ae 
PLES fo bod 


ORAL) Aaa Yicgesh :eo9eceH',, 


7 


oT. .a om ecm | redid me hie nad t 
OLOL Leroi papeyes ; 

oY arose  sHaneh uel eis 
rc Bs 


- 110 - 

Randell, Wilfrid, L: The Art of Mr. Henry James. 
Fortnightly Review. April, 1916. 

Young, Filson: A Bundle of Violets. English Review, 
April, 1916. 

The World of Henry James. Living Age. April 22, 1916. 
(From The Times. ) 

Leach, Anna: Henry James: An Appreciation. Forum, May 


ESLG. 


Walbrook, H. M: Henry James and the English Theatre. 


Nineteenth Century, July, 1916. 
Lubbock, Percy: Henry James. Quarterly Review. July 


1916. Living Age. September 16, 1916. 

James, Henry: The Middle Years. London and New York, 
Lez? . 

Freeman, John: Henry James. Moderns: Essays in Liter- 


ary Criticism. 1917. 


Sherman, S. P: The Aesthetic Idealism of Henry James. 
On Contemporary Literature. New York, 1917. 

Wyatt, Edith: Henry James. Great Companions. 1917. 

Bosanquet, Theodora: Henry James. Fortnightly Review, 
June, 1917. 


-e | — ae be ee 


tang ; an 
7 Phe ‘ 


EN ae ed Sn hie tt 


oth ig ria ey , ps eres ay! | . 
ofoW to eb inss A lode te 
“a i “I 

‘ Sh RU ’ fs TYA uM ' 
; A , 


nk. ri ‘enAt vray to Siva 


\ Rigs’?! eee mont i 


i} es a) iv Me hia! .Srtsthed) 


&¢ $ sf f ne eo Ofer 


Meet CSN on? seein 


; - el 2 “f 
It 7 6 2 4 Bua f Cfiwin sare ” + 
-* 2 — 
“ ¥i, ‘=i 5 a } 
J Eres Ww has Died 


Vottegl eft sf 8 he 
- TH % > al v LOR OCHO TNO wo i 
TR .28e) “pak Oeil ae 


yt pe Asal C sted Lh1pboenT: Pee 


Eee hi One 


=< LT = 
Beach, J- W: Lhe Method of Henry James. New Haven, 1918. 
Follett, H. T. and Ws Henry James. Some Modern Novelists; 
Appreciations and Estimates.1918. 
Hackett, Francis: Horizons; A Book of Criticism. 1918. 
Gilman, Lawrence. Henry James in Reverie. North 


American Review. January, 1918. 


Note:- This bibliography is selected for the 
student of the critical standards of Hemry James. The 
bibliography collected and published by Le Roy Phillips 
contains a complete list of Henry James's writings, their 
first publication, and all republications, from the begin- 
nitg in 1864 to 1906. The Cambridge History of American 
Literature gives a complete list of publications up to 
1918. I have included in this bibliography only the 
critical writings of Henry James, and such other books as 
may be important in tracing the artistic influence of 
Ruskin, etc., and the list of biographical and critical 


works about Henry James. 


TR VERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 


Any 


